CRM-M No. 44206 of 2015 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 44206 of 2015 (OM)
Date of decision : 13.7.2018

…

Harjang Singh and another
…………….Petitioners

vs.

State of Punjab and another
……………..Respondents

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan

Present: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners

Ms. Samina Dhir, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab

Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate for respondent No.2
…

H. S. Madaan, J.

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

FIR No. 13, dated 18.7.2015, for offences under Sections 498-A, 406

IPC, registered at Police Station Women Jagraon, District Ludhiana,

has been filed by petitioners Harjang Singh and his wife Charanjit

Kaur, both of them being accused in that FIR.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant

Balwinder Kaur d/o Babu Singh submitted a written complaint to

SSP, Police District Ludhiana (Rural), on the allegations of cheating

and turning out alongwith child in three clothes, demand of money in

1 of 7
23-07-2018 00:28:06 :::
CRM-M No. 44206 of 2015 -2-

cash, misappropriation of dowry articles, being threatened with death

in case of re-entry in the house, refusal to allow peaceful life and

being threatened with divorce etc. against her husband Gurpreet

Singh Doal, father-in-law Harjang Singh, mother-in-law Charanjit

Kaur, contending therein that she was married with Gurpreet Singh

Doal on 25.2.2011. At that time her parents had spent a huge amount

of Rs.10-12 lacs giving dowry articles as per demand of her husband

and parents-in-law, including costly gifts to her husband and parents-

in-law. Complainant was permanent resident of Canada and an NRI.

It was her second marriage, the first marriage having ended in

divorce. According to the complainant she had handed over her

dowry articles to the accused. That after some time of marriage, her

husband and parents-in-law started harassing her, stating that dowry

articles had not been given as per their status. The petitioner tolerated

this maltreatment to save her marriage. She returned to Canada in

April 2011. The complainant ensured migration of her husband

Gurpreet Singh Doal to Canada who reached there in February 2012.

There he in connivance with his parents again started harassing the

petitioner. He would beat her up also. Mother-in-law of the

complainant came to Canada on 18.7.2013, where she remained for 4-

5 months. Fed up with such treatment the complainant had informed

the police.

After registration of the FIR, the petitioners are seeking

quashing of FIR for several reasons; that marrige between Balwinder

Kaur and Gurpreet Singh Doal was a simple affair and no dowry was

given or accepted, except customary gifts given to the accused and

2 of 7
23-07-2018 00:28:06 :::
CRM-M No. 44206 of 2015 -3-

close relatives; that the fact that the complainant was a divorcee was

concealed from the accused; that during the stay of about two months

in India when the complainant remained in matrimonial home

alongwith her husband, she alongwith her husband spent more than

one month for going on honeymoon/enjoyment trips to Shimla,

Dehradun and various outer places and visited relatives of both the

sides and lastly the complainant left India in the first week of May

2011. As a matter of fact during her stay in India, the complainant

remained admitted in Kaliyani Hospital, Jagraon, for about 20 days

due to her pregnancy problem as a result of her previous marriage and

the entire expenditure for her treatment was borne by her husband

Gurpeet Singh Doal and the present petitioners. Gurpreet Singh Doal

left for Canada to join the complainant after about 8-9 months of

marriage and he is living over there and has never came back to India.

The couple spent time in cordial atmosphere and a male child was

born to them on 29.11.2012; that the relations between the

complainant and Gurpreet Singh Doal became strained due to bad

temperament of the complainant; that son of the petitioners, Gurpreet

Singh Doal was compelled to call the police in Canada and then

spouses started residing separately; that Gurpreet Singh Doal had

filed a case in the Court and marriage has rightly ended in divorce;

that the case regarding custody of child is pending in the Court in

Canada; that in order to cause harassment to the petitioners and their

son, Balwinder Kaur came to India on 7.7.2015 and from the Airport

straightway went to the Police and filed a complaint for registration

of a case in the office of SSP, Jagraon. She did not come to house of

3 of 7
23-07-2018 00:28:06 :::
CRM-M No. 44206 of 2015 -4-

the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the Courts in India do

not have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the complainant

has lodged the FIR only to cause harassment to the petitioners, who

are senior citizens and have not committed any offence; that the

complainant just want to grab the property of the petitioners; that the

FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioners and lodging

of the FIR and ancillary proceedings are an abuse of the process of

the Court.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondents, who

put in appearance.

I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant,

besides going through the record.

As it comes out from the record, after the marriage

Balwinder Kaur and her husband Gurpreet Singh Doal, who is son of

the present petitioners, resided in India for about two months and

thereafter left India in the first week of May 2011, going to Canada. It

seems that in Canada both the spouses developed differences and

were/are involved in litigation. The FIR in question has been lodged

on 18.7.2015 i.e. after four years of the marriage. It does not appeal

to the reason that while the complainant and her husband were

residing in Canada, the petitioners would harass and maltreat the

complainant being dissatisfied with the dowry articles brought by her

so as to pressurize her to bring more dowry articles. The alleged

incidents of maltreatment and torture of complainant by her husband

and in-laws relate to Canada and no cause of action was available to

4 of 7
23-07-2018 00:28:06 :::
CRM-M No. 44206 of 2015 -5-

the complainant to lodge FIR against her husband and parents-in-law

with the police of Police Station Sadar, Jagraon. It seems that as a

pressure tactics, the complainant came to India and lodged the FIR

and it appears to be nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is

specific case of the petitioners that complainant was a divorcee at the

time of contracting marriage with their son Gurpreet Singh Doal,

which fact was concealed by her and her parents. In that way they had

cheated them but despite that they kept quiet and did not take any

action. In Canada also, fed up with the maltreatment and misbehavior

of the complainant, her husband Joga had filed a divorce petition

dated 16.9.2015, before Superior Court of Justice, Brampton, Ontario,

though case regarding custody of child is pending before Superior

Court of Justice, Brampton, Ontario. The complainant has lodged the

FIR to pressurize her husband and in-laws and to grab the landed

property of her in-laws.

Furthermore, the allegations in the FIR are general and

sweeping. No specific entrustment of any dowry articles has been

alleged. Within a period of two months, the complainant could not

have been subjected to such cruelty etc. so as to force her to bring

more dowry articles from her parents. If it was so, then the question

arises that why did she kept quiet for such a long time and lodged the

FIR all the way coming to India from Canada, after four years, when

her husband filed a divorce petition against her and sought custody of

their son by moving a petition in the Court of competent jurisdiction

at Brampton, Ontario, Canada and not at the earliest when she was

allegedly harassed in connection with dowry soon after the marriage.

5 of 7
23-07-2018 00:28:06 :::
CRM-M No. 44206 of 2015 -6-

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to

various authorities, first of the those being Sukhdeep Kaur and

another vs. State of Punjab and another 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal)

892, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein it was observed

that in the recent past a tendency has developed for roping in all the

relations of husband in dowry cases in order to browbeat and

pressurize the immediate family of the husband. It was further

observed that for the fault of the husband, the other relations cannot,

in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry.

He has further pressed into service Bhaskar Lal

Sharma and another vs. Monica 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 866, by

the Apex Court, wherein it was observed that any gift made to the

bridegroom or his parents whether in accordance with any custom or

otherwise also would not constitute any offence under Section 406

IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed

reliance upon Smt. Adarsh and others vs. State of Punjab and

another 1992 (1) RCR (Criminal) 667, by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court, where while dealing with a case relating to an FIR under

Sections 406, 498-A IPC, relating to allegations of misappropriation

of istridhan, it was found that allegations were highly improbable and

not acceptable to common sense. The FIR was quashed qua the

petitioners holding that it is no rule of thumb that whatever has been

stated in FIR has to be accepted as gospel truth even if it is altogether

unacceptable to common sense. It was a case where the wife had

lodged FIR under Section 406 and 498-A IPC, against the entire

6 of 7
23-07-2018 00:28:06 :::
CRM-M No. 44206 of 2015 -7-

family members of husband without making specific mention as to

which particular article of dowry was handed over to which particular

accused. The FIR qua sister, brother and brother’s wife of husband

was quashed.

Another authority referred to by learned counsel for the

petitioner in Rakesh Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and

others 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 565, by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court, wherein it was observed that High Court can quash the

proceedings even after framing of charge.

In view of the above discussion, the petition has merit

and deserves to be accepted, the same is allowed. Resultantly, the FIR

alongwith its ancillary proceedings are ordered to be quashed, being

an abuse of process of law and in the interest of justice. .

( H.S. Madaan )
13.7.2018 Judge
chugh

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No

Whether reportable Yes / No

7 of 7
23-07-2018 00:28:06 :::