SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 November, 2017

Crl. Misc. M-29411-2017 -1-


Crl. Misc. M-29411 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: November 10, 2017

Manpreet Singh


State of Punjab and others



Present:- Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG Punjab.



The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

for quashing of the order dated 20.07.2017 passed by Sub Divisional

Magistrate Jagraon whereby, the application for release of passport of

petitioner was dismissed.

In brief, the facts of the case are that brother of the petitioner

namely Gagandeep Singh Brar got married to daughter of respondent No.4

namely Kuldeep Kaur on 20.02.2005 and both went to Canada, where out of

this wedlock a girl child namely Harkirat Kaur was born on 21.03.2006.

Thereafter, relation between them became strained and an effort was made

to save their matrimonial life, but all in vain. Thereafter, respondent No.4-

Gurmail Singh, father of Kuldeep Kaur moved an application before SSP,

1 of 4
15-11-2017 01:26:29 :::
Crl. Misc. M-29411-2017 -2-

Jagraon, with a frivolous allegation for demand of dowry in Canada and

harassment to Kuldeep Kaur and allegations were also made against the

present petitioner and whole of his family for instigating Gagandeep Singh

Brar for the demand of dowry. On the basis of said application, an FIR

No.182 dated 03.08.2010, under Sections 420, 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal

Code came to be registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon. However,

during investigation, all the allegations of respondent No.4 were found to be

false and it came out that brother of the petitioner was being harassed in

Canada and also thrown out of house by daughter of respondent No.4. The

cancellation report was filed and thereafter, the FIR was turned into a

complaint case, in which the petitioner has not been summoned. On

18.09.2009 a divorce petition for divorce was filed in the court of Canada

and the same was granted by Judicial Court of Alberta on 10.06.2011. After

the dissolution of marriage, both Gagandeep Singh Brar (brother of the

petitioner) and Kuldeep Kaur (daughter of complainant-respondent No.4)

have re-married in Canada and they are living their life. It is stated that the

petitioner moved an application before learned SDJM, Jagraon for release of

the passport, but the same came to be dismissed on 20.07.2017. Being

aggrieved against the said order, the instant petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the FIR, in the

which the passport was surrendered by the petitioner, has already been

cancelled by the police and the same was accepted by SDJM, Jagraon and

the complaint filed by complainant-respondent No.4 was ordered to be

treated as a private complaint. It is contended that the dispute was between

2 of 4
15-11-2017 01:26:30 :::
Crl. Misc. M-29411-2017 -3-

husband and wife i.e. the petitioner’s brother and his wife, who have already

divorced each other and also re-married. It is also argued that both the

brother of petitioner and daughter of respondent No.4 after re-marriage

having their kinds and living happy life, but the petitioner is still facing

harassment under the said FIR and not able to lead a normal life. It is also

contended that petitioner is ready to give surety/security for releasing of his


Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-

State opposes the present petition, while submitting that if the passport of

the petitioner is released, then it would be difficult to procure his presece at

a later stage.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the case.

It is not in dispute that real controversy was between

petitioner’s brother Gagandeep Singh Brar and daughter of

complainant/respondent No.2 Kuldeep Kaur, who were married on

20.02.2005 and went to Canada after their marriage. An FIR No.182 dated

03.08.2010 came to be registered under Sections 420, 498-A, 406 of Indian

Penal Code at the instance of complainant/respondent No.4, father of

Kuldeep Kaur, in which after due investigation, a cancellation report came

to be filed. The said cancellation report was accepted by SDJM, Jagraon and

the complaint of complainant/respondent No.4 was ordered to be treated as

a private complaint. The said complaint is still at the stage of recording

preliminary evidence and the petitioner herein has yet not been summoned

3 of 4
15-11-2017 01:26:30 :::
Crl. Misc. M-29411-2017 -4-

therein. Further, both Gagandeep Singh Brar and Kuldeep Kaur have since

been granted divorce by the court at Canada on 10.06.2011 and after

dissolution of marriage, they have now re-married in Canada and living

their life happily with kids there.

Under Article 21 of the Constitution, no person can be deprived

of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. It is

not disputed that no law was made by the State regulating or depriving

persons of such a right. A similar view is reiterated in the decision rendered

by 7-Judge Bench of this Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India

and another (1978) 1 SCC 248 . Under these circumstances, this court is

of the considered view that no purpose would be served in retaining the

passport of the petitioner.

In view of the above, the petition in hand is allowed and the

impugned order 20.07.2017 is hereby set aside. The passport of the

petitioner is ordered to be released to him on his furnishing security/surety

bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the concerned Sub Judicial

Magistrate at Jagraon, with an undertaking that as and when presence of the

petitioner is required by the court, he shall make himself available before

the court.

The petition stands allowed accordingly.

November 10, 2017 JUDGE
vijay saini

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

4 of 4
15-11-2017 01:26:30 :::

Leave a Reply

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

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