CRM-M No. 6890 of 2013 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 6890 of 2013 (OM)
Date of decision : 27.9.2018

…

Mangal Das Gautam and another
…………….Petitioners

vs.

State of Haryana and another
……………..Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana.

Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant
…

H. S. Madaan, J.

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by

Mangal Dass Gautam and his wife Neelam Gautam, presently

residing in USA, through their special power of attorney Charanjit

Singh, against State of Haryana and Neha – complainant, seeking

quashing of FIR No. 238 dated 19.10.2012 for offences under

Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station

Ambala Sadar, Ambala and consequent proceeding arising out of the

said FIR; further for quashing of order dated 9.10.2012 passed by

1 of 5
07-10-2018 02:53:45 :::
CRM-M No. 6890 of 2013 -2-

ACJM, Ambala, directing the registration of the case and

investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

Inter alia in the complaint, it is contended that Neha

complainant -respondent No.2 in the petition was married with Paras

Gautam, son of the petitioners on 15.10.2010. After marriage, Paras

Gautam and Neha stayed at Panchkula for a few days and then left

India for United States on 29.10.2010. Paras Gautam has been

residing in USA before his marriage. Similarly, petitioners have also

been residing in USA, putting up alongwith their elder son in

California and they had only occasional interaction with the

complainant and her husband Paras Gautam. There was absolutely no

interference by the petitioners in the marital affairs of Paras Gautam

and Neha. Unfortunately, Paras Gautam and Neha could not pull

together and developed a matrimonial discord. Resultantly, Paras

Gautam filed a divorce petition in the Court of law in USA. Neha

returned to India since she was not a permanent resident of USA and

filed a criminal complaint in the Court of ACJM, Ambala, which

culminated in registration of FIR against the petitioners and their son

Paras Gautam . In such FIR, Neha has levelled allegations of her

maltreatment and harassment in connection with demand of dowry by

her husband Paras Gautam and his parents – the petitioners and they

having misappropriated her dowry articles.

According to the petitioners, the allegations in the FIR

are totally false and it has been got registered as a pressure tactics in

response to the divorce petition filed by Paras Gautam against Neha.

Therefore the FIR in question be quashed.

2 of 5
07-10-2018 02:53:45 :::
CRM-M No. 6890 of 2013 -3-

On notice, respondents appeared and after opposing the

petition, are craving for dismissal of the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

State counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the

complainat -respondent No.2, besides going through the record and I

find that there is merit in the petition.

It is not in dispute that petitioners and their son have

been non-resident Indians and they had come to India for a short

duration in connection with marriage of Paras Gautam with Neha,

returning to USA thereafter. Admittedly, after contracting marriage

with Paras Gautam, Neha had also gone to USA, where unfortunately

the two spouses could not pull on together giving rise to discord

between them, which ultimately resulted in their marital ties, coming

to an end and the same being terminated by way of decree of divorce.

The petitioners have placed on file documents in that

regard going to show that divorce proceedings then pending before

District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado, USA and as per

agreement there was stipulation regarding the return of jewellery

articles to Neha. Copy of separation agreement is also available on

the record showing that the spouses had separated on 18.9.2012 and

their marriage had broken down irretrievably. The separation

agreement was based on full and fair disclosure of the assets and

liabilities of each party. Vide this agreement, there was division of

property and debts, which included personal property, jewellery,

personal items, vehicles, wedding dress, India real estates, leased

residence, businesses, bank accounts etc., including the maintenance

3 of 5
07-10-2018 02:53:45 :::
CRM-M No. 6890 of 2013 -4-

aspect. Almost every possible eventuality has been taken care of vide

this agreement. Then decree of divorce dated 26.4.2013 is also there.

The respondent-complainant having accepted and subjected herself to

the jurisdiction of the Court at America, obtaining benefits under the

settlement,now she cannot challenge the said settlement and decree of

divorce. She is estopped from challenging that settlement and decree

of divorce.

As regards the FIR lodged, it is highly unlikely that soon

after the marriage, the complainant was subjected to harassment and

maltreatment at the hands of her in-laws, during a span of a few days,

when they were together before petitioners returned to USA, followed

by the complainant.

Similarly, the petitioners could not have possibly taken

away istridhan articles, if any, of the complainant, to USA. If that had

happened, the complainant who is an educated girl, would have

informed the police at the earliest, rather than keeping quiet and not

taking any action at that very time. As it comes out, the dispute

between Neha and her husband had taken place in USA, where it was

ultimately resolved. The complainant returning to India from USA

and lodging FIR in question against her husband and parents-in-law,

is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Further more the

marriage between Neha and her husband has been dissolved and a

settlement has been arrived at between them through the Court of

competent jurisdiction at USA. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of

things if the FIR in question and subsequent proceedings qua the

petitioners are brought to an end.

4 of 5
07-10-2018 02:53:45 :::
CRM-M No. 6890 of 2013 -5-

Therefore, the petition is accepted and the FIR No. 238

dated 19.10.2012 for offences under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506

IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala Sadar, Ambala, alongwith

ancillary proceedings are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

( H.S. Madaan )
27.9.2018 Judge
chugh

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No

5 of 5
07-10-2018 02:53:45 :::