Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1140 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh v. Bhupinder Singh

2007-05-15

T.P.S.MANN

body2007
JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J:.- The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.108 dated 24.10.2000 under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act filed by respondent in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh and all the proceedings taken thereunder, including the summoning order dated 2.3.2002. 2. In the complaint, it was alleged by Bhupinder Singh respondent that he was a divorcee and residing at Chandigarh. He was interested in going abroad. He approached Darshan Singh petitioner in the month of June 1999, who promised to send him to USA, for which, he was to charge Rs. 6,50,000/-. He further told the complainant that he would marry Jaswinder Kaur, who was his close relative. All the expenses of marriage and visit of Jaswinder Kaur to India etc. were to be borne by the complainant. The complainant agreed to the same for the reason that he was interested in going to USA. He paid a sum of Rs. Three lacs in cash by withdrawing the same from his savings account. Darshan Singh accused then called Jaswinder Kaur from USA, whereafter the marriage of the complainant with Jaswinder Kaur was solemnized on 4.7.1999. The complainant and Jaswinder Kaur then lived together as husband and wife for more than three weeks. During the said period Jaswinder Kaur spent a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-, doing shopping and visiting several places. The complainant paid another amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- in addition to the earlier payment of Rs. Three lacs. He was assured that after Jaswinder Kaur returns to USA, she would apply for permanent immigration on behalf of the complainant. However, despite repeated requests of the complainant and service of legal notice, Darshan Singh did not take any concrete steps for the migration of the complainant. Alleging that Darshan Singh and Jaswinder Kaur had hatched a conspiracy to extract money from him by inducing him to marry a girl, who was an NRI, Bhupinder Singh complainant sought the prosecution of Darshan Singh petitioner and Jaswinder Kaur under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act. 3. Alleging that Darshan Singh and Jaswinder Kaur had hatched a conspiracy to extract money from him by inducing him to marry a girl, who was an NRI, Bhupinder Singh complainant sought the prosecution of Darshan Singh petitioner and Jaswinder Kaur under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act. 3. After recording of the statement of Bhupinder Singh complainant as CW1, who deposed on almost identical lines besides producing a number of documents on the record, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class summoned the petitioner and Jaswinder Kaur under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned complaint. In fact, it was complainant Bhupinder Singh, who committed a fraud by solemnizing the marriage with Jaswinder Kaur, who was none-else but the wife of his own brother Harminder Singh. There was no occasion for the petitioner introducing said Jaswinder Kaur to the complainant. It has also been submitted that the complainant is a travel agent and running agencies under the name and style of ‘Gobind Travels’ and ‘Gobind Enterprises’ with their offices in Sector 34, Chandigarh. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Annexure P.3, which is a visiting-card, wherein Bhupinder Singh is shown to be the one running Gobind Enterprises and Gobind Travels. The particulars of one Harry have also been mentioned, which according to the petitioner was none-else but Harminder Singh, brother of Bhupinder Singh as said Harminder Singh was residing in USA, where he is known by his nick name Harry. Attention has also been drawn to Annexure P.4, which is an identity-card issued by Bhupinder Singh as proprietor of Gobind Travels in favour of Harminder Singh, describing him to be a business executive of Gobind Travels. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record birth certificates of Benny Tatla and Saveen Tatla (Annexures P.5 and P.6), issued by Department of Health, the City of New York showing them to be born to Jaswinder Kaur and Harminder Singh Tatla. Similarly, a certificate (Annexure P. 7) was issued by Gurkamal Singh stating therein that he was the officiating Priest, who married Jaswinder Kaur and Harminder Singh Tatla on June 15, 1986 at New York. Similarly, a certificate (Annexure P. 7) was issued by Gurkamal Singh stating therein that he was the officiating Priest, who married Jaswinder Kaur and Harminder Singh Tatla on June 15, 1986 at New York. Apart from these documents, certain photographs have been placed on record, wherein Bhupinder Singh complainant was shown present with Jaswinder Kaur and Harminder Singh. From all these documents, learned counsel for the petitioner has that the allegations of introduction of Jaswinder Kaur to Bhupinder Singh by the petitioner was totally false and baseless. No amount, whatsoever, was either asked for or received by the petitioner from Bhupinder Singh. The filing of the complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of Court by the complainant was for extraneous consideration, besides spoiling the career of the petitioner, who was working as a Manager in the Punjab National Bank and had been awarded silver jubilee award for completing 25 years of service in the bank. Prayer was, accordingly, made for quashing the complaint and summoning order, besides all the proceedings taken thereunder. 5. Reply was filed by complainant Bhupinder Singh, wherein preliminary objection was taken that the summoning order could only be challenged by filing a revision and as the said remedy was not availed, the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On merits, it was submitted that Jaswinder Kaur was a cousin of the petitioner and she had been engaged in helping a number of persons to migrate to USA and England by showing temporary and fictitious marriages with them. In a similar manner, Harminder Singh, brother of the complainant, was shown to be married with Jaswinder Kaur and in order to obtain citizenship of USA, she gave birth to twins, namely, Benny Tatla and Saveen Tatla on 17.10.1987 from the loins of Harminder Singh. The marriage of Jaswinder Kaur with Harminder Singh finally ended in divorce on February 24, 1997. Copy of the judgment of divorce has been placed on record as Annexure R 1. Photographs (Annexure R.2) and marriage certificates (Annexures R.3 and R.4) have been placed on record to establish that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Jaswinder Kaur on 4.7.1999. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed before me. 7. Photographs (Annexure R.2) and marriage certificates (Annexures R.3 and R.4) have been placed on record to establish that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Jaswinder Kaur on 4.7.1999. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed before me. 7. Where the complaint does not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence or when the proceedings are found to be instituted for extraneous considerations and with ulterior motive or where the allegations levelled are patently absurd and inherently improbable, this Court has powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to step in and quash the proceedings so as to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. The inherent powers possessed by this Court are very wide. However, at the same time, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully, with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 8. The petitioner had alleged that Jaswinder Kaur, who got married to Bhupinder Singh complainant, was none-else but said Bhupinder Singh’s sister-in-law, being his brother Harminder Singh’s wife. 8. The petitioner had alleged that Jaswinder Kaur, who got married to Bhupinder Singh complainant, was none-else but said Bhupinder Singh’s sister-in-law, being his brother Harminder Singh’s wife. This averment was admitted by complainant Bhupinder Singh in para 4 of the reply wherein it was stated that Harminder Singh and Jaswinder Kaur got married and from the said wedlock, twins, namely, Benny Tatla and Saveen Tatla were born on 17.10.1987. It was also stated that the marriage of Jaswinder Kaur with Harminder Singh, brother of Bhupinder Singh complainant, finally ended in divorce. In the face of such an admission by the complainant, the petitioner was nobody who could have introduced aforementioned Jaswinder Kaur to Bhupinder Singh complainant. Annexure P.9 clearly depicts Bhupinder Singh complainant in the company of his brother Harminder Singh, his brother’s wife Jaswinder Kaur and their children. The petitioner is now fastened with liability when Bhupinder Singh claims in his reply that Jaswinder Kaur was a cousin of the petitioner. No such allegation was levelled in the complaint or at the time of recording of preliminary evidence. Jaswinder Kaur was married to Harminder Singh in June, 1986 and the marriage lasted upto February 1997 when a judgment of divorce was passed by a US Court. 9. The petitioner has brought on record documents showing that Bhupinder Singh complainant and his brother Harminder Singh are themselves running travel agencies. There is no specific denial of the averment made by the petitioner. It is apparent that the complainant has no material to rebut the same and for that reason he opted to keep mum on the specific stand of the petitioner. However, he mentions time and again in his reply that he was cheated by the petitioner of a large sum of money with the help of his co-accused Jaswinder Kaur. When the complainant himself was running a travel agency and a recruiting agent approved by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide certificate No. 3006/CHD: PER/300/3/5027/97 as is clear from the visiting-card Annexure P.3, which also shows that the travel agency was in existence since 1989, there was no question of the complainant seeking the help of someone else in himself migrating to USA.. No material has been brought on record by the complainant that the petitioner was engaged in the business of sending people abroad. No material has been brought on record by the complainant that the petitioner was engaged in the business of sending people abroad. It appears that the complainant has some score to settle with the petitioner and with that idea in mind, he came up with the allegations that it was the petitioner who cheated him by inducing him to pay a large sum of money so as to send the complainant abroad. 10. In view of the above, where the allegations levelled by the complainant are apparently baseless, malicious and the complaint having been filed for an oblique motive and for extraneous considerations, this Court would not hesitate to step in by entertaining the plea of the petitioner seeking quashing of the complaint, besides that of the summoning order and all the proceedings taken thereunder. The objection raised by complainant/respondent that remedy of revision was available to the petitioner for challenging the summoning order cannot be sustained, as the very complaint is found to have been filed by the complainant, not to seek redressal of his lawful grievance but to abuse the process of Court for an oblique motive and for extraneous considerations. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. Complaint No. 108 dated 24.10.2000 under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act is quashed. Order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh on 2.3.2002, while summoning the petitioner under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and all the proceedings taken thereunder are also quashed. ————————————