Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 Decided on 8 .7. 2009. Risal Singh and another .............. Petitioners. versus State of Punjab and another ........... Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.K.Trikha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate for the complainant. K.C.PURI, J . Risal Singh and Savitri Devi have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.80 dated 17.4.2007 under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ( in short – IPC) registered at Police Station Zirakpur District SAS Nagar Mohali (Annexure P-11) and the final report filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short – Code) dated 18.3.2008 filed under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. In nut-shell, the factual matrix of the case is that the Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 2 complainant got married his daughter Randhir Kaur with the son of the petitioners on 17.4.2004. The marriage ceremony was performed at Nimantran Banquets Zirakpur, District Mohali. The marriage was arranged through advertisement in the newspaper at the instance of the petitioners and the same was registered on 5.4.2004 at Ropar. The Shagun ceremony took place on 15.4.2004 at Aroma Hotel, Chandigarh. From the very beginning, the petitioners were insisting for a decent marriage, like that everything should be given of a good quality and useful one. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners' family is of a good status, the petitioners being retired from Market Committee, Ambala, the complainant could not smell the greediness regarding dowry. The complainant alleged that the petitioners at Mohali handed over a list of about 53 persons disclosing that they are their relatives and should be given money, suits, saries etc. as shagun on the occasion of marriage. The marriage was performed at Nimantran Banquets, Zirakpur, District Mohali in which a treat was given to about 1000 persons, which constituted the barat and lavish dinner was arranged for which expenditure of about 8 lacs was incurred. At the time of marriage and bidai, following articles of jewellery i.e. Rs.51,000/- one gold chain etc. which were meant for my daughter, were handed over to the mother-in-law Smt.Savitri Devi-petitioner No.2, as at that time, daughter of the complainant was busy in the ceremonies. Two suit case, full of clothes, meant for daughter of the complainant and his son-in-law were also handed over to the mother-in-law of my daughter and the keys thereof were handed over to the father-in law-petitioner No.1 of complainant's daughter. Since son-in-law of the complainant has been working in TEXAS (USA), so cash Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 3 of Rs.5,00,000/- was demanded instead of car and the same was handed over to petitioner No.1 in the presence of relatives and friends. At that time of Shagun, jewellery and clothes along with cash were also given to the petitioners and their son amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. Soon after the marriage, petitioner No.2 started maltreatment to the daughter of the complainant on the one pretext or the other that the articles and gold ornaments were not of good quality. The cash amount for car was also not sufficient for the purchase of good Sedan. When my daughter along with her husband came to Ropar, at that time she disclosed that her husband and his parents were of greedy nature and were trying to find short comings in her in order to harass her or to make an occasion to say something regarding the expenditure incurred on the marriage. The complainant sent US $ 9000 to his son-in-law at USA for purchase of good car adding that Rs.5,00,000/- given at the time of marriage. The son of the petitioners used to maltreat the daughter of the complainant either for bringing less dowry or asking for some more money from him. In a meeting arranged by the complainant on 20.10.2005 at Mohali, in the presence of some respectable, the attitude of the petitioners was not conducive and they were saying that the complainant being a leading Advocate at Ropar, the petitioners were more expecting from him. Thereafter, son in law of the complainant left India on 25.10.2005 for USA and had not taken with him daughter of the complainant along with him to USA. The complainant then sent his daughter after making her to understand that she should join her husband at USA and the complainant would try to render every possible help to her. The complainant gave four sets of jewellery, 12 gold bangles to her mother- Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 4 in-law as gifts along with cash Rs.50,000/-, four gold rings and one diamond ring to his daughter as her Istridhan. All the jewellery articles given by the complainant, household things, gift items were retained by the mother-in -law (petitioner No.2), being not required in the USA. Despite repeated requests by the complainant, the petitioners failed to hand over the above mentioned articles to his daughter rather stating that the complainant should not interfere in their family affairs. In the month of January 2007, the complainant received information from his daughter that her husband had beaten her and turned her out of matrimonial house by stating that promise made by her father had not been fulfilled. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case minutely with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that divorce petition was pending before the Courts at USA. Said divorce petition filed by the son of the petitioners has been accepted. The complainant has raised the controversy regarding the holding of property before the said Court. That controversy has also been decided by the USA Court and as such in view of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, the same controversy cannot be allowed to be raised before the Court in India. I have carefully considered the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case. From the perusal of the judgment passed by USA Court, it is revealed that petitioners' son sought divorce from the daughter of the complainant before the trial Court. The daughter of the complainant in the written reply has stated that she has no objection. The controversy Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 5 regarding the dowry articles was not within the domain of the controversy raised before the USA Court and was not directly or substantially adjudicated by the USA Court and as such the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, are not attracted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is malicious and just to put pressure on the present petitioners. Complainant remained in India for two weeks and thereafter went to USA. The allegations are just to put pressure on the petitioners. I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in those submissions. Specific acts of cruelty and entrustment of dowry articles are there in the FIR. It cannot be said at the out set that allegations are malicious and just to put pressure on the petitioners. All these contentions can be raised during the course of trial. It is settled law that criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the threshold unless a strong case is made out for the same. From the perusal of the record, it cannot be said that a case for quashing the FIR by invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. The para-meter for quashing the proceedings has been laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 604. The case of the petitioners does not fit in the said para-meter. The authority in the case of Vishwa Nath vs. UOI and others in CWP No.14368 of 1998 decided on November 27, 2000 is also based upon the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). That authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is also not helpful to the case of the petitioners. The authority laid down in the case of State of Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 6 Karnataka vs. L.Munishwamy and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is not helpful to the petitioners. In the said authority, it has been laid down that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. There is no material on the file to warrant the conclusion that continuation of the proceedings in the present case would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Consequently, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 08 , 2009 sv Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 7 It has been further alleged that after solemnization of marriage on 17.4.2004, the girl came to the house of the petitioners at Ambala on that very day. Both husband and wife left for USA on 4.5.2004. Therefore, her total stay after the marriage with the son of the petitioners is about 17 days. Out of these days, the couple spent four days on their honeymoon to Massorrie, 3-4 days the couple stayed at the house of the complainant at Ropar, two days at Yamuna Nagar with the uncle of Sidharth Walia and spent five days at Delhi for obtaining Visa of Randhir Kaur from US Embassy. Thus, only 3 days, the girl stayed at Ambala in her matrimonial home with her husband and the petitioners. Further, the petitioners alleged that only mother of the girl Randhir Kaur visited USA in November 2004 and came back in January 2005, but her visit has been concealed in the impugned FIR. The girl, while in USA was caught stealing golden ear rings of the Plastic Card by the Security of the Foley's Departmental Store, but was released by the security staff on giving her an apology vide Annexure P-2. The behaviour and conduct of the girl was totally different, which she has not changed despite complaint to her parents. On 18.8.2005, the girl Randhir Kaur came to India with a confirmed return ticket for celebrating `Rakshabandan' festival and stayed with her parents during her stay in India. Sidharth Walia came to India only on 2nd September, 2005 and went back on 25.9.2005 while Randhir Kaur left India on the intervening night of 8/9.10.2005. The petitioners alleged that no complaint was made by the girl during her stay in India regarding demand of dowry at all. It has been further alleged that petitioner No.2 Savitri Devi visited USA on 7.6.2006 Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 8 and after staying there for about 40 days, she came back to India on 17.7.2006 and during her stay of 40 days in USA, there is no allegation of any harassment by her or by anybody else. However, due to conduct and behaviour of the girl, the difference between the couple started cropping up because of her stealing habits. Ultimately, on 23.10.2006, Randhir Kaur finally left the house along with luggage and jewellery for California to live with her maternal uncle. When she left the matrimonial home on 23.10.2006, she took 1000 dollars in cash, a cheque of 2000 dollars and also withdrew 10,000 dollars from the joint account from California and in this way she took about Rs.5,20,000/- in Indian currency as is evident from Annexures P-3 and P-4. It has been further asserted that Sidrath Walia filed divorce petition Annexure P-5 and Randhir Kaur filed reply Annexure P-6. However, divorce petition was amended vide Annexure P-7 and the reply to the amended divorce petition is Annexure P-8 and divorce was granted on 12.3.2008 vide final decree Annexure P-9. While passing decree of divorce, the Court also passed the orders on the division of their properties as well. It is also ordered by the court that the husband shall pay to the wife a sum of 24436 dollars in the form of a cheque pay, which were paid, as is evident from Annexure P-10. It has been further asserted by the petitioners that they went to USA on 21.2.2007 with their son, the instant FIR No.80 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC was lodged by father of the girl on 17.4.2007 with mala fide intention and got declared them along with their son, who is permanent resident of USA, as proclaimed offenders vide order dated 14.9.2007 passed Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 9 with mala fide intentions of the complainant as well as investigating agency. After completion of the investigation of the said FIR, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-17) has been presented in the trial Court. Further, petitioners alleged that Courts at Mohali, Rajpura and Dera Bassi have no jurisdiction to entertain the case because it is alleged that just after 4 days of the marriage at Ambala, all other allegations of cruelty, harassment or beatings are that of USA and the daughter of the complainant after having gone through never came to reside either at Ambala. She came to Ropar in the year 2005 only for a short break and went back thereafter. Therefore, neither the Police Station at Zirakpur nor the Courts at Rajpura are competent to take cognizance of the offences which are alleged to have been committed at Ambala or at USA. The impugned FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence being committed either at Zirakpur or District Mohali, Rajpura and Dera Bassi. The FIR also does not disclose either of such offences having been taken place at Zirakpur. All the allegations of harassment, maltreatment or beatings are alleged to have occurred in USA are levelled against the non- applicant (son of the petitioners). On notice, State of Punjab filed reply by way of affidavit of Jatinder Singh Khaira, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dera Bassi, Police Station Zirakpur, District Mohali on behalf of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 took preliminary objection that the investigation of the case has already been completed and the challan has been prepared and the same has been presented in the Court on 10.4.2008 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura. Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 10 Therefore, the FIR in question cannot be quashed at this stage and the quashing petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. On merits, answering respondent admitted relations of the parties. However, it is denied that the instant case has been instituted with mala fide intention and gross abuse of the process of law or that it is in manner to take revenge, as alleged. The report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is as a result of proper investigation conducted by the investigation agency. There are specific allegations against the petitioners that Randhir Kaur was harassed, tortured and maltreated by all the accused along with the present petitioners in order to fulfill the demands of dowry and the investigation has also revealed that the present petitioners-accused had played specific role for harassing her in order to bring more dowry. The State is duty bound to investigate the matter, whenever cognizable offence is reported to have taken place and more so when it is a matrimonial dispute. However, it is denied that there is any law which requires that the matrimonial dispute is always sent to crime against women cell before registration of the FIR. So far as declaration of the petitioners as proclaimed offender is concerned, whatever address was furnished to the State by the complainant, they were searched at the same, but when they were not traceable, they were declared proclaimed offender after following the proper procedure by the learned trial Court. The State was not aware that the petitioners have left India before the proceedings for declaring them as proclaimed offender were initiated by the learned trial Court which would have necessitated the following of procedure under Section 105(b) Cr.P.C. Crm. M. No.M-22342 of 2008 11 The State also denied that any unwarranted order was passed by the learned Court at Rajpura on the application moved by the State for cancellation of the passports. There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, Rajpura on 14.7.2007. Denying other averments, the answering respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. Petitioners filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by respondent No.1, reiterated the assertions raised in the petition and denied those of the reply.