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 :::