Crl.Misc. No. M-1792 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1792 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 26 , 2011 Charan Singh Bhullar alias Charan Bhullar and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.P.S.Kang, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vishal Munjal,Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 --- Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 191 dated 15.9.2007 (Annexure P10) under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.2 was resident of Canada and had come to India for her marriage in the year 1999. Respondent No.2 got married to petitioner No.1.Thereafter in June 2000,petitioner No.1 joined his Crl.Misc. No. M-1792 of 2008 2 wife in Canada and was residing there. Respondent No.2 is residing in Canada. Petitioner No.3 was residing in England after his marriage. No child was born to petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 got a decree of divorce on 16.6.2008 and, thereafter, respondent No.2 got remarried with some one else. No cause of action had arisen in India. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand has submitted that petitioner No.1 had returned to India in 2005 and had, thereafter, started quarreling with the complainant. Petitioner No.1 had given an advertisement on the internet for his second marriage. The complainant had visited India in the year 2006 and she was not told anything about the whereabouts of Charan Singh. Complainant again came to India in January 2007 and she was harassed by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. At the time of registration of the FIR, complainant had again come to India and had been harassed by her in laws family. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. It has been held in 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 Crl.Misc. No. M-1792 of 2008 3 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, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute 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 Crl.Misc. No. M-1792 of 2008 4 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 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.” The present case is an example of total misuse of process of law. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had got Crl.Misc. No. M-1792 of 2008 5 married in the year 1999. Complainant had come from Canada to India and had got married to petitioner No.1, In June 2000., petitioner No.1 joined his wife-complainant in Canada. Thus, thereafter, the petitioner and complainant have been residing in Canada . Apparently some matrimonial dispute occurred between petitioner No.1 and the complainant. Petition seeking divorce filed by petitioner No.1 was allowed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) vide order dated 16.6.2008. Since petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have got a decree of divorce and are presently also residing in Canada, the continuation of criminal proceedings in India would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. It appears that the FIR in question was lodged by respondent no.2 just to pressurize petitioner Nos.2 and 4. Petitioner No.1 as well as the complainant are residing in Canada and basically it is the relatives of petitioner No.1 who are facing criminal proceedings in India. Accordingly this petition is allowed. FIR No.191 dated 15.9.2007(Annexure P10) registered under Sections 406/498 I.P.C. Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 26 , 2011 arya