SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajit Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 30 July, 2018

CRM-M No. 28895 of 2015 1


CRM-M No. 28895 of 2015
DATE OF DECISION :- July 30, 2018

Ajit Singh and another …Petitioners


State of Punjab and another …Respondents


Present:- Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2.


This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R.

No. 6 dated 12.8.2015 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police

Station NRI, Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom has

been filed by Ajit Singh, aged about 64 years and his wife Manjit Kaur,

aged about 60 years, both of them being accused in this case.

F.I.R. in question was recorded on the basis of statement of

complainant Kanwarjit Singh Bedi son of Sh. Bhagwan Singh Bedi resident

of H.No. 42, Deep Nagar, Near Sunflower School, Tripuri, Patiala who had

submitted a written complaint addressed to Inspector General of Police, NRI

(Women Cell), Mohali, Punjab. Interalia he submitted that his daughter

Royjeet Kaur Bedi was married with Barinderjit Singh son of Ajit Singh

(petitioner no. 1) at Mohali on 27.1.2013 as per Sikh religious rites and he

1 of 6
12-08-2018 12:39:21 :::
CRM-M No. 28895 of 2015 2

had spent around Rs. 48 lacs at that time. That his daughter moved to USA

in March 2013 to join her husband there, however, his daughter’s-in-law

family demanded Rs. 5 lacs to meet expenses of Visa fee, ticket etc. and he

has accordingly paid that amount; that he had already given complaint to

SSP, Patiala narrating his grievance in detail which was marked to Women

Counselling Cell, Patiala, however, the matter was patched up but presently

Passport of his daughter is being withheld by her husband rather she has

been abandoned and forced to live alone. Her husband has applied for

restraint/protection order on false implications and his daughter has been

given deadline on 28.8.2014 to vacate the premises. As she is on H4 Visa so

she is not allowed to work as she is on dependent Visa of H1B of her

husband. She has no bank account, no credit or debit card and she has been

denied basic expenses by her husband. Husband of his daughter denied so at

the instance of his parents (petitioners) in this petition. The root cause is

demand of dowry which he is unable to meet and necessary action in the

matter be taken.

After registration of the formal F.I.R. the investigation began.

The petitioners are seeking quashing of F.I.R. and ancillary proceedings on

the following grounds :-

i) No offence is made out against the petitioners since marriage
performed between son of petitioners and daughter of
complainant has already been revoked vide divorce decree
dated 13.8.2015 passed by the Courts in U.S.A.

ii) that marriage between Barinderjit Singh, son of petitioner
and Royjeet Kaur Bedi daughter of complainant-respondent
no.2 was performed in a simple manner where no dowry was
given or accepted; that after marriage Barinderjit Singh left for

2 of 6
12-08-2018 12:39:21 :::
CRM-M No. 28895 of 2015 3

U.S.A. on 31.1.2013, whereas his wife Royjeet Kaur Bedi
followed him on 19.3.2013. The couple resided together
happily in U.S.A., however, neither the couple had returned to
India thereafter nor the petitioners have visited them in U.S.A.
The petitioners are not on speaking terms with Barinderjit
Singh who has been disowned by them vide public notice
published in the newspaper dated 15.6.2014 since he was not
under their control.

iii) That relations between Barinderjit Singh and Royjeet Kaur
Bedi became estranged after some time due to cruel and rude
treatment on Royjeet Kaur Bedi by Barinderjit Singh.
Barinderjit Singh had lodged a complaint against Royjeet Kaur
Bedi with police at U.S.A. seeking temporary injunction
against her from the Court to the effect that she should not
interfere in his peaceful life and his life and liberty be
protected. That Court in U.S.A. on the basis of report submitted
by U.S.A. police granted temporary injunction in favour of
Barinderjit Singh and against Royjeet Kaur Bedi. Copy of that
order has been attached with the petition as Annexure P2.

iv) That Barinderjit Singh had filed a divorce petition in a
Court having jurisdiction in U.S.A. in the year 2014 on the
ground of cruelty and non supporting. The petition was duly
contested by Royjeet Kaur Bedi, however, decree of divorce
was granted on 13.8.2015 finding that allegations made by
Royjeet Kaur Bedi were totally false and frivolous. Copy of
divorce petition and decree of divorce has been attached as
Annexure P3 and P4.

v) That Royjeet Kaur Bedi never submitted any complaint to
the police in U.S.A. against her husband or his family members
i.e. petitioners. She has not submitted any complaint to police
in India regarding demand of dowry or harassment against

vi) That on earlier on 7.7.2014, respondent no. 2 with a

3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-08-2018 12:39:21 :::
CRM-M No. 28895 of 2015 4

malafide intention had lodged a false and frivolous complaint
with SSP, Patiala against petitioners and their son Barinderjit
Singh just to extort money. Copy of complaint being Annexure
P5, however, that complaint was withdrawn by him on
29.7.2014 giving in writing that there was some
misunderstanding with the petitioners which had been removed
as such he did not want to proceed with the complaint. Copy of
complaint is Annexure P6 In that complaint there was no
allegation with regard to demand of dowry or harassment; that
complainant-respondent no. 2 on coming to know that the
Court in U.S.A. is going to grant decree of divorce lodged one
more complaint on the basis of which the present F.I.R. has
been registered; that the allegations in the F.I.R. are wrong and
F.I.R. has been registered due to political pressure; that the
allegations in the present F.I.R. do not disclose any offence.

vii) Police at Patiala does not have territorial jurisdiction to
register the F.I.R. since boy and girl in question are living
separately in U.S.A. as their marriage has been dissolved by a
decree of divorce. The allegations in the F.I.R. are absurd and
inherently improbable. That petitioners have filed a suit for
permanent injunction against complainant-respondent no.2 and
his family members on 30.8.2014; that they should not interfere
in their peaceful life; that suit is pending, therefore, the petition
be accepted.

The petition is being contested by the State counsel and the


I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel

for the complainant and learned State counsel besides going through the


The petitioners are parents of Barinderjit Singh, who was

married with Royjeet Kaur Bedi and thereafter the couple had shifted to

4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-08-2018 12:39:21 :::
CRM-M No. 28895 of 2015 5

America where on account of matrimonial discord, their marriage has been

dissolved by a decree of divorce and now they are residing separately.

A perusal of the F.I.R. goes to show that the main grouse of the

complainant is that his daughter has been harassed and maltreated by her

husband. The allegations against the petitioners are very vague and evasive,

to the effect that root cause of problem being that they are directing their

son to act according to their will to seek dowry. Though he has made an

allegation that at the time when his daughter moved to U.S.A. in March,

2013 at that time at the asking of his daughter-in-law’s family Rs. 5 lac had

been paid by him. There are no specific allegations of demand of dowry on

the part of the petitioners and complainant giving the same. It seems that on

account of his daughter Royjeet Kaur Bedi developing a matrimonial

dispute with her husband, the petitioners have got registered the present

F.I.R. as a pressure tactic which is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

There is force in the contention of the petitioners that Royjeet Kaur Bedi

herself has not lodged any complaint against them with police in America or

in India. Further more though according to the complainant he had

submitted a written complaint to SSP, Patiala earlier but then the same had

been withdrawn by him.

Learned counsel for the petitioners had referred to an authority

“Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others versus State of Punjab and others

2009 (Criminal Law Journal) 3462” by the Apex Court wherein it was

observed that when a larger part of offence had been committed in Canada,

however, the F.I.R. was lodged at Jalandhar, the same was quashed for the

said reason.

5 of 6
12-08-2018 12:39:21 :::
CRM-M No. 28895 of 2015 6

I am of the view that ends of justice demand that the F.I.R.

along with ancillary proceedings are quashed. The petition is accepted

accordingly and F.I.R. in question besides the ancillary proceedings qua the

petitioners are ordered to be quashed.

July 30, 2018

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

6 of 6
12-08-2018 12:39:21 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation