IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(1) Crl. Misc. M 25375 of 2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: Feb 8, 2018

Rajesh Kumar Gupta…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another…Respondents

(2) Crl. Misc. M 41457 of 2015 (O&M)

Rakesh Kumar Gupta…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate,for a petitioners.

Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate,for respondent No.2.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. By this common judgment, this probity proposes to dispose of a dual aforesaid mentioned rapist diverse petitions filed underneath Section 482 of a Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 62 antiquated 14.07.2012 (Annexure P/1) purebred during Police Station Kahnwan, District Pathankot, underneath Sections 406, 498-A and 420/34 IPC and all element record outset there under, as they arise out of a 1 of 9 identical set of contribution and a common law indicate is involved. For a consequence of brevity, contribution have been taken from CRM- M-25375 of 2015 Rajesh Kumar Gupta contra State of Punjab and another.

2. In brief, a contribution as settled are that a matrimony was solemnized between Arun Kumar Gupta, hermit of a petitioner, and Pramila Devi on 14.2.2006 in Amritsar, according to Hindu eremite rites and ceremonies. Respondent No. 2 that is a complainant shifted to England in Mar 2006 and continued to reside there with her husband, a hermit of a petitioner. The petitioners are permanent proprietor of United Kingdom and staying alone from their brother. In Jun 2010 Arun Kumar Gupta along with his mother came to India . The family members of respondent No. 2 designed for going on a event to Mata Vaishno Devi on 06.06.2010. Respondent No. 2 accompanied them and while they were divided Arun Kumar Gupta returned to England. On her lapse respondent No. 2 came to know that he had also taken her critical papers along with him and afterward contacted her father on phone. She was positive that he would send a papers behind to her in Amritsar. The papers were sent though they were perceived by respondent No. 2 in a marred condition. Resultantly, she could not transport on them. Thereafter, she got FIR No. 62 antiquated 14.07.2012 (Annexure P/1) purebred during Police Station Kahnwan, District Pathankot, underneath Sections 406, 498-A and 420/34 IPC opposite her father Arun Kumar Gupta, his genuine brothers Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta alleging that during a time of matrimony her kin spent some-more than their capacity, i.e `2 lakhs in money while giving 28 of grams of bullion and other articles including air-conditioner, fridge, TV, CD player. It was serve 2 of 9 settled in a F.I.R that her father used to harass her with steady final of `5 lakhs. It was also settled that a rascal had been played on her. After a registration of a FIR, a challan was presented opposite Arun Kumar Gupta and his dual brothers. Since a petitioners were not staying in India during a time of a registration of FIR, they were not served with any summons, hence were announced admitted delinquent by a conference probity by sequence antiquated 2.1.2014. Thereafter, a postulant on entrance to India submitted bail holds and is confronting trial. Aggrieved opposite a record a present petition for quashing of FIR has been preferred.

3. Mr. R.S Bajaj, schooled warn appearing on interest of petitioner, contends that a FIR purebred is zero though an abuse of a routine of law with an try to harass a family members of a father of a complainant. It is argued that a postulant is a British citizen and is staying in England alongwith his family given 1978. In fact, he did not attend a matrimony of respondent No. 2, nor did he attend in a pronounced matrimony in a year 2006. He came to India in a year 2010 for a brief generation of a month and left immediately thereafter. The claim of respondent No. 2 that she was tormented and given beatings while she was staying in England are blatantly fake as a postulant is staying during a stretch of about 175 km from a matrimonial home of respondent No. 2- complainant and had zero to do with their daily life. The complainant and her father used to revisit India on an annual basement and no censure was ever submitted to any chairman possibly in England or in India. Moreover, after a registration of a impugned F.I.R, a minute review was finished by SP (HQ) Pathankot, who gave his news dogmatic a postulant innocent.

3 of 9 However, though holding a news into care extra challan opposite a postulant has presented. It is also argued that a complainant and her father Arun Kumar Gupta were staying in England after solemnizing of their matrimony and any corruption would be within a territorial office of United Kingdom and a courts in India would not be efficient to do so.

4. Reply to a present petition has been filed by both a respondent–State and respondent No.2–complainant. Mr. R.K. Arya, schooled warn appearing on interest of a complainant and Mr. A.S. Sandhu Additional Advocate General, disagree that there are critical allegations in a FIR opposite a postulant herein as he is a chairman who instigated Arun Kumar Gupta, father of a complainant, to direct money of `5 lakhs. It is argued that a news prepared by SP domicile Pathankot, dogmatic a postulant trusting was never authorized of and can't be taken into consideration.

5. we have listened a warn for a parties and with their assistance perused a pleadings.

6. Admittedly, a matrimony took place between Arun Kumar Gupta and a complainant Promila Devi in a year 2006. After matrimony a parties resided together in England and there seems to have been no censure done during that time possibly before a authorities there or during any of their annual visits to India. A reading of a FIR does not exhibit that a postulant herein attended a matrimony of Arun Kumar Gupta with a complainant or that there was any delegation of any dowry articles. There is no discuss in a pronounced F.I.R of any bullion ornaments etc. carrying been given 4 of 9 to a petitioner. In fact, usually ubiquitous allegations have been done saying that there was a direct of dowry by a in-laws family. All a allegations are opposite her father Arun Kumar Gupta that he returned to England in her deficiency along with her jewellery, her passport, temperament card, atmosphere tickets and other papers while also holding divided `1 lakh with him. In fact, a usually claim in a FIR opposite a postulant is that on seeking about a locale of her husband, from her brother-in-law Rakesh Kumar Gupta, she was sensitive that he had returned to UK. In a FIR there is no discuss about a postulant Rajesh Kumar Gupta. It is usually in a extra challan presented that there is a anxiety of a petitioners, namely Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Gupta, instigating father of a complainant to lift a direct of `5 lakhs from her when they used to revisit her home.

7. In a respond filed to a postulant for quashing of a FIR, there is no rejection that a petitioners herein are permanent residents of England and staying alone during a stretch of 175 km from a matrimonial home of a complainant. Even if for a consequence of argument, it is taken into comment that a petitioners herein instigated their hermit to lift a direct of `5 lakhs from a complainant, it was a direct that was lifted in England, outward a territorial office of a courts during Bhatinda. Therefore, a offence, if any, had been committed in England. A identical box came adult for conference before a Supreme Court in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others Versus State of Punjab and others 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 956, wherein a parties were staying in Canada and FIR was purebred during Jalandhar alleging direct of dowry and misappropriation of dowry articles.

5 of 9 The record were quashed holding that a Jalandhar probity would have no office to perform a matter. Similarly in a present case, even if there was an urging during a insistence of a petitioners for direct of `5 lakhs from a complainant, a pronounced direct was lifted outward a territorial office of Bhatinda and, therefore, a courts are not efficient to perform a matter.

8. Even differently there is no specific purpose or damage or direct of dowry or delegation of dowry articles /istridhan or misappropriation of a same opposite a petitioners herein. It is apparently transparent that a F.I.R has been purebred opposite a petitioners herein usually to harass a family members. The Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another contra State of Jharkhand and another (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667 had no perplexity in quashing a Criminal Complaint underneath Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323, and 120 B of IPC review with Sections 3 and 4 of a Dowry Prohibition Act, qua married sister-in-law and unwed brother-in-law who were staying separately. It was celebrated as under:-

“18. The powers hexed by a High Court underneath Section 482 of a Code are really far-reaching and a really saturation of a energy requires good counsel in a exercise. The probity contingency be clever to see that a preference in practice of this energy is formed on sound principles. The fundamental powers should not be exercised to suppress a legitimate prosecution, though a Court’s unwell to use a energy for enrichment of probity can also lead to grave injustice.
19. The High Court should routinely refrain from giving a 6 of 9 prima facie preference in a box where all a contribution are deficient and hazy; some-more so, when a justification has not been collected and constructed before a probity and a issues involved, either significant or legal, are of such bulk that they can't be seen in their loyal viewpoint though sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast order can be laid down in courtesy to cases in that a High Court will practice a unusual office of quashing a record during any stage.

29. Admittedly, Appellant No.1 is a permanent proprietor of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been vital with her father for some-more than 7 years. Similarly, Appellant No.2 is a permanent proprietor of Goregaon, Maharashtra. They have never visited a place where a purported occurrence had taken place. They had never lived with respondent No.2 and her husband. Their import in a censure is meant to harass and disparage a husband’s relatives. This seems to be a usually basement to record this censure opposite a appellants. Permitting a complainant to pursue this censure would be an abuse of a routine of law.”

9. In B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, a Hon’ble Supreme Court has celebrated :-

“If for a purpose of securing a ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to a 7 of 9 practice of energy of quashing. It is, however, a opposite matter depending on a contribution and resources of any box either to practice or not such a power. Thus, a High Court in practice of a fundamental powers can stifle rapist record or FIR or censure and Section 320 of a Code does not extent or impact a powers underneath Section 482 of a Code.”

10. Recently, in a box of Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. and another (Criminal Appeal No.1265 of 2017, motionless on 27.07.2017) a Hon’ble Supreme Court has celebrated that “….there is need to check a bent to wire in all family members to settle a matrimonial dispute. Omnibus allegations opposite all kin of a father can't be taken during face value when in normal march it might usually be a father or during best his parents, who might be indicted of perfectionist dowry or causing cruelty. To check abuse of over implication, transparent ancillary element is indispensable to ensue opposite other kin of a husband.”

11. In a box in hand, a petitioners are brothers-in-law of a complainant, staying alone from a complainant and their hermit in England, that too during a substantial distance. Not a singular instance has been given as to when or as to how or in what demeanour petitioners herein are concerned in a elect of purported offences. There is no averment to a outcome that a censure had been lodged in England or any time before to thereto when a complainant used to revisit India.

12. In perspective of a foregoing contention and ratio of law laid down by a Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of 8 of 9 Jharkhand and another, in B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, in Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. and another and Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia (Supra), this probity is of a deliberate perspective that there is no specific allegation/details opposite a petitioners, to consecrate an corruption underneath Sections 406, 498-A and 420/34 of Indian Penal Code.

13. In perspective of a above, a present petitions are allowed. Consequently, a FIR No. 62 antiquated 14.07.2012 (Annexure P/s1) purebred during Police Station Kahnwan, District Pathankot underneath Sections 406, 498-A and 420/34 IPC and all element record outset there underneath qua a petitioners herein are quashed.

February 8, 2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
prem JUDGE