Crl. Misc. No. M-20245 of 2010 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-20245 of 2010 Date of Decision: 01.8.2011. Kamaljit Singh .......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 108 dated 14.3.2002, under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had got married to the daughter of respondent No.2 on 6.2.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner left for Canada along with the daughter of complainant-respondent No.2 on 29.12.2000. The petitioner has not returned back to India, thereafter. The marriage between the parties was dissolved in ex-parte on a divorce petition moved by the petitioner by the Superior Court of Canada Province of Quebec. Thereafter, Taranjeet Kaur came to India and performed Crl. Misc. No. M-20245 of 2010 -2 - marriage with Jagdev Singh and they are also residing in Canada. The parents of the petitioner had faced the trail in the present case and they have been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 19.10.2005 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.2 had also filed a civil suit against the parents of the petitioner claiming dowry articles etc. but the same was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure P-7). Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was proclaimed offender. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 despite service. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute Crl. Misc. No. M-20245 of 2010 -3 - any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is Crl. Misc. No. M-20245 of 2010 -4 - maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” In the present case, marriage of the petitioner to Taranjeet Kaur was solemnized on 6.2.2000 and thereafter, they left for Canada on 29.12.2000. On the divorce petition moved by the petitioner, divorce was granted in ex-parte to the petitioner against Taranjeet kaur by the Superior Court of Canada Province of Quebec. As per the contentions in the petition, Taranjeet Kaur has performed re-marriage with Jagdev Singh and is presently residing with him. The parents of the petitioner had faced trial under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and were acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 19.10.2005 (Annexure P-3). The civil suit filed by Taranjeet Kaur through respondent No.2 for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner and parents of the petitioner to return the dowry article etc. or for recovery of ` 7,70,000/- was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure P-7). The case of the petitioner is that he has never returned back to India after he took his wife along with him to Canada in the year 2000. Hence, lodging of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the year Crl. Misc. No. M-20245 of 2010 -5 - 2002 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Even in the trial, faced by the parents of the petitioner, Taranjeet kaur had failed to appear in the witness box. Accordingly, this present petition is allowed. FIR No. 108 dated 14.3.2002, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 01, 2011 Gurpreet