SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Taranpreet Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 6 October, 2018

CRM-M No. 19082 of 2015 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1) CRM-M No. 19082 of 2015 (OM)
Date of decision : 6.10.2018

Taranpreet Singh Mangat and others
…………….Petitioners

vs.

State of Punjab and others
……………..Respondents

2) CRM-M No. 19378 of 2015 (OM)

Narinder Singh
…………….Petitioner

vs.

State of Punjab and others
……………..Respondents

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

Present: Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate for
Mr. T.S. Salana, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CRM-M-19082-2015)

Mr. Nitish Garg, Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner
in CRM-M-19378-2015

Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab.

Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

1 of 4
14-10-2018 03:59:26 :::
CRM-M No. 19082 of 2015 -2-

H. S. Madaan, J.

Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of CRM-M-19082-

2015 titled as Taranpreet Singh Mangat and others vs. State of Punjab

and others and CRM-M-19378-2015 titled as Narinder Singh vs.

State of Punjab and others.

Petitioners Taranpreet Singh Mangat, Kuldeep Kaur and

Amrinder Singh have filed CRM-M-19082-2015, whereas petitioner

Narinder Singh has filed CRM-M-19378-2015, under Section 482

Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 35 dated 10.4.2012, for offences

under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Mehatpur,

District Jalandhar, as well as order dated 11.3.2013, passed by Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, declaring the petitioners as

proclaimed offenders, or any other alternative relief.

Notice of the petitions was given to the respondents, who

have put in appearance in the Court and are resisting the petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides going

through the record.

According to the petitioners Taranpreet Singh Mangat,

Kuldeep Kaur and Amrinder Singh, are citizens of United States of

America, residing there since 1998 and even respondents No. 2 and 3

are citizens of America and are living there since long. Whereas

petitioner Narinder Singh is citizen of Canada and residing there

since long. Taranpreet Singh Mangat is husband of respondent No.3,

whereas Kuldeep Kaur and Amrinder Singh are her mother-in-law

and brother-in-law (devar), respectively. Petitioner Narinder Singh is

2 of 4
14-10-2018 03:59:26 :::
CRM-M No. 19082 of 2015 -3-

maternal uncle (mama) of Taranpreet Singh Mangat; that the

petitioners or any of their family member never demanded any dowry

or treated respondent No.3 with cruelty at any time, in this regard.

The allegations in the FIR are totally false and baseless and FIR is

nothing but an abuse of the process of law, filed with mala fide

intention. Therefore, the petitions be accepted.

Whereas according to the State counsel, petitioners being

absconders and having been declared proclaimed offenders, these

petitions, at their instance, are not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to various

judgments, first being Bahadur Singh and others vs. State of

Punjab and another 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 252, by a Coordinate

Bench of this Court, wherein it was observed that when larger part of

offence has taken place in Canada, marriage has already been

dissolved at Canada, then FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of

criminal law. However, this authority is distinguishable, since

petitioners-accused therein had not been declared as proclaimed

offenders by the trial Court, whereas it is so in the instant case.

Therefore, this authority does not help the petitioners much.

As regards the second authority referred to by them, Sunil

Kumar vs. State 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 119, by Delhi High Court,

wherein it was observed that when accused absconding in a case

under Section 498A IPC and was declared proclaimed offender,

when he was residing in a foreign country, but not attempt was made

to serve summons through Ministry of External Affairs, the order

issuing proclamation was set aside. Again this judgment does not

3 of 4
14-10-2018 03:59:26 :::
CRM-M No. 19082 of 2015 -4-

come to the rescue of petitioners, since in view of the ratio of

authority Mehnga Singh vs. State of Punjab 2002 (2) RCR

(Criminal) 501, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, objections

regarding legality and validity of the proclamation is required to be

raised in the first instance before the Court, which issued the

proclamation and not before the Higher Court by way of filing

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Some other authorities referred to by him like,

Chandralekha and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2013

(1) RCR (Criminal) 959, are with regard to observations made in

context of facts of that authority. Therefore, both the petitions are

doomed for failure and are dismissed accordingly.

However, the petitioners may surrender in the trial Court and

apprise it of their case, moving application for regular bail and then

after getting the order declaring them proclaimed offenders set aside

can approach this Court again, seeking quashing of the FIR and

ancillary proceedings.

( H.S. Madaan )
6.10.2018 Judge
chugh

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No

Whether reportable Yes / No

4 of 4
14-10-2018 03:59:26 :::

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