CRM-M No.11847 of 2018 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.11847 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision.18.03.2020
Surindervir Singh and another …Petitioners
Vs
State of Punjab and another …Respondents
CORAM:HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
-.-
JAISHREE THAKUR J.
1. This is a petition that has been filed for quashing of FIR No.15
dated 08.02.2016 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Patiala for offence
punishable under Sections 406, 498-A IPC as well as impugned order dated
15.02.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala whereby
cancellation report has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the aforementioned FIR was
registered on statement of respondent No.2-complainant wherein it was
alleged that marriage of the complainant was solemnized with one Deep
Sukhman Singh s/o Surindervir Singh on 11.04.2010 in Chandigarh as per
Sikh rites and rituals in a Gurdwara. Immediately thereafter they started
living at Patiala in a rented house along with father-in-law, mother-in-law and
sister-in-law. It was further stated that in the marriage father of the
complainant had given 34 tolas gold and `1.5 lakhs in cash as shagan apart
from other dowry articles. However, immediately thereafter in-laws of the
complainant started torturing her physically and mentally and asked her to
1 of 8
19-03-2020 23:25:51 :::
CRM-M No.11847 of 2018 (OM) -2-
bring cash from her father. Later on, when the complainant informed her
father about the whole matter over phone, her father deposited money in the
ICICI bank account of complainant from where her in-laws on 21.05.2010
had withdrawn a sum of `3.8 lakhs through cheque. As husband of the
complainant was doing a job in U.K., few days after marriage he left for U.K.
and the complainant lived with her in-laws for about two months. During this
period of two months, sister-in-law of the complainant used to provoke her
mother-in-law and father-in-law to ask for dowry. Two days after marriage,
parents of complainant had given a diamond ring worth `10,000/- for the
husband of her sister-in-law beside clothes. Despite giving dowry by parents
of complainant to their capacity, her in-laws and their relatives had maltreated
her on account of demand of more dowry.
3. In May, 2010, the complainant had gone to U.K. on dependent
visa of her husband where also sister-in-law of the complainant and her
husband provoked husband of the complainant to force her to do job and earn
her expenses. One month thereafter, the complainant got a job with a salary
more than her husband and her husband used to deposit whole salary of the
complainant in his bank account. Father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
complainant had been visiting in UK and had been torturing the complainant
mentally and physically. On 18.12.2013, a daughter was born out of the
wedlock. In-laws of the complainant were not happy with the birth of a
female child and they started torturing her mentally and physically, due to
which her health deteriorated and she remained admitted in hospital. They
started threatening the complainant that in case she took any action against
them they would cause harm to the child.
4. On 17.09.2014 when husband of the complainant gave her
2 of 8
19-03-2020 23:25:51 :::
CRM-M No.11847 of 2018 (OM) -3-
beatings, she ran away from the house and called up U.K. Police on phone.
The police came immediately and arrested husband of the complainant and
kept him in lock up for 24 hours. He was released from lock-up on the
condition that he will not go near the house of the complainant and her child.
On the advice of one NGO and with their help, an order was obtained from
Court for security of the complainant and her daughter and they also got
facility to live in the same house. That order was challenged by husband of
the complainant. Since the complainant was on dependent visa of her
husband, he informed the U.K. Home Office that he had started living
separately from the complainant due to which her visa was cancelled. Since
the complainant lost her job on account of cancellation of visa and did not
have any sources to sustain in U.K., she told her husband through some
friends that she along with her daughter wanted to go back to India.
Thereafter on 31.12.2014, complainant reached Ahmedabad. As soon as the
complainant reached India, she filed a case against her alleging kidnapping of
child and domestic violence. The FIR was got registered under Sections 406,
498-A IPC alleging demand of dowry and harassment etc.
5. During investigation, the accused persons gave applications to
SSP Patiala pleading their innocence, which were marked to DSP
(Investigation), Patiala for enquiry. He submitted a report dated 26.04.2016
to SSP Patiala stating therein that on enquiry, it had been found that in case
any beating had taken place with the complainant or any type of dowry had
been demanded from her or money had been withdrawn from her account, all
this had happened in U.K. and in this regard, court cases are going on in
England. Since no witness or proof had been presented by the complainant
against her husband and in-laws, no proceedings are to be carried out by the
3 of 8
19-03-2020 23:25:51 :::
CRM-M No.11847 of 2018 (OM) -4-
local police. Therefore, a cancellation report under Section 173 Cr.PC. was
prepared and submitted before the Court.
6. The trial Court vide order dated 15.02.2018 rejected the
cancellation report filed by the police and sent the matter back to the
concerned quarters for further investigation after making entries in the
relevant record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case, which is evident
from the fact that after detailed investigation conducted by DSP
(Investigation), Patiala, he came to the conclusion in his report that no
offence is made out against the petitioners and prepared a cancellation report,
which was approved by Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala. He further
argued that it is an admitted case that soon after a period of 40 days of
marriage, complainant left for U.K. on a dependent visa of her husband and
when a dispute arose between husband and wife, the complainant chose to
file number of cases in England. The husband of the complainant had filed a
petition for divorce, which was granted by the Family Court at Brantford on
29.04.2016. The said divorce order was passed by the Family Court at
Brantford after considering the statements and letters given by the
complainant-wife. In fact, she had also made written submissions to the
Court that she had no intention to attend court proceedings in England.
8. He further argued that it is settled law that when a larger part of
offence in a matrimonial dispute is ensued outside, taking recourse to
proceedings in India would be a gross abuse of process of law and the
investigating agency will have no jurisdiction for initiating proceedings under
the Indian Penal Code. In support of his arguments, he relied upon judgment
4 of 8
19-03-2020 23:25:51 :::
CRM-M No.11847 of 2018 (OM) -5-
Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another 2008(3) RCR
(Criminal) 135 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in case of FIR
lodged in India for offence committed in Kuwait, Courts in India have no
jurisdiction under Section 4 of Indian Penal Code and Section 188 Cr.P.C.
would not be applicable. He further relied upon judgment passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Bahadur Singh and others Vs.
State of Punjab and another 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 252 wherein it has
been held that where larger part of offence has taken place in Canada and
marriage has already been dissolved at Canada, lodging of FIR in India under
Sections 406, 498-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of process of law. On
similar lines, relied upon judgment rendered by Supreme Court in
Harmanpreet Singh Ahuwalia and others Vs. State of Punjab and others
2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 956 and therefore, prayed for quashing of FIR
No.15 dated 08.02.2016 and impugned order dated 15.02.2018 passed by
JMIC, Patiala whereby cancellation report has not been accepted.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
supported the order passed by the JMIC, Patiala by arguing that the
investigating agency completely ignored the fact that there was a specific
allegation in the FIR that during the stay of complainant at Patiala, she was
harassed by her in-laws for bringing less dowry then her father deposited
money in her ICICI bank account and the accused persons i.e. her in-laws,
had withdrawn a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- on 21.05.2010 by way of cheque. It is
also submitted that before leaving for U.K., she stayed with her in-laws at
Patiala where she was harassed and beaten up for bringing more dowry. It is
in this background, the trial Court rejected the cancellation report and ordered
for further investigation in the matter.
5 of 8
19-03-2020 23:25:51 :::
CRM-M No.11847 of 2018 (OM) -6-
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
paper book and the case laws cited.
11. Admittedly, the marriage did take place between the son of
petitioners and the complainant namely Rajpreet Kaur on 11.04.2010 in
Chandigarh. The allegations as set out in the FIR are that father of the
complainant had given 34 tolas of gold, apart from giving clothes, blankets to
all the relatives of in-laws and `1.5 lakhs in cash, however, the in-laws had
physically and mentally abused her and she was subjected to beatings for not
bringing enough cash in her dowry. On this account, her father deposited
money in her ICICI bank account, which was withdrawn on 21.05.2010 by
her in-laws through cheque. It is averred that she lived in her in-laws house
with her mother-in-law and father-in-law for a period of 1-2 months, during
which time her sister-in-law, who was living with her would provoke her in-
laws to harass her. The complainant left for U.K. in May, 2010 to join her
husband and they lived together as husband and wife. The sister of her
husband namely Ujwaldeep Kaur and her husband would also provoke her
husband to force her to earn, which earnings her husband would get deposited
in his own bank account. It was alleged that she had been subjected to torture
in England by all, meaning thereby by her husband and mother-in-law and
father-in-law as well, whenever they used to visit their house in U.K. They
were also unhappy on birth of daughter due to which her health deteriorated
and she was admitted in hospital. The complainant further alleged that she
was deprived of the company of her daughter, apart from allegations of being
subjected to physical abuse at the hands of husband. Resultantly, she called
up the police and husband was arrested and kept in custody for 24 hours. As
she was on a dependent visa, he informed the U.K. Home Office that he was
6 of 8
19-03-2020 23:25:51 :::
CRM-M No.11847 of 2018 (OM) -7-
living separately from his wife, due to which her visa got cancelled and she
lost her job. As she did not have expenses to look after herself and that of her
child, she had no option but to take her minor child and come back to
Ahmedabad on 13.11.2014. It is thereafter the FIR registered.
12. A perusal of the FIR would reveal that there are general
allegations regarding ill-treatment being meted out to her at the hands of the
petitioners, who are none other than the father-in-law and mother-in-law,
parents of the husband. No specific details have been given other than a
statement that they used to beat her and were asking to call for cash from her
father. It is to be noted that the complainant left for England on a spouse visa
within a period of 1-2 months of her marriage and it is during the time she
spent in England that there are allegations of her having been subjected to
physical and mental abuse at the hands of her husband and at the hands of her
in-laws when they were visiting them in England. So much so, the police was
called on account of brutality meted out to her but said incidents pertain to
events that took place in England. It is only on her return to India that an FIR
bearing No.15 dated 08.02.2016 came to be registered under Sections 406,
498A IPC at Women Police Station, District Patiala. The allegations as set
out in FIR did not reflect that the complainant had lodged any complaint with
the police before leaving for U.K. on a spouse visa and therefore, this Court
would come to the conclusion that the incidents complained of would not
pertain to territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Patiala. A similar case came
up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harmanpreet Singh
Ahluwalia (supra) wherein the parties were residing in Canada and FIR was
registered at Jalandhar alleging demand of dowry and misappropriation of
dowry articles, apart from being subjected to mental and physical cruelty.
7 of 8
19-03-2020 23:25:51 :::
CRM-M No.11847 of 2018 (OM) -8-
The proceedings were quashed holding that the Court at Jalandhar would
have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Similarly, in the instant case, all
allegations of cruelty at the hands of husband and the in-laws, in fact, have
taken place abroad. Therefore, judgment as relied upon by learned counsel
for the petitioners in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia (supra) is fully
applicable to the facts of the instant case.
13. Even otherwise, the argument as raised by counsel for the
respondent No.2 that parents-in-law had misappropriated a sum of `3.8 lakhs
from her ICICI bank account by withdrawing money through a cheque on
21.05.2010 would not be enough for allowing the FIR to continue against the
petitioners. The complainant at the relevant time did not file a complaint
against the petitioners for withdrawal of the said amount from her ICICI bank
account, leading one to the conclusion that she had issued a cheque in their
favour. There is no averment that the said amount was thereafter
misappropriated for their own personal use. Even otherwise, the amount so
withdrawn pertains to the year 2010 and the instant FIR has been registered
as late as 08.02.2016.
14. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court for further
investigation of the matter once a cancellation report has been filed is
unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Consequently, order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the trial Court is set aside
and the FIR No.15 dated 08.02.2016 (Annexure P-1) being an abuse of the
process of law is hereby quashed. The instant petition is allowed.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
JUDGE
March 18, 2020
Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
19-03-2020 23:25:51 :::