Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1164 (PNJ)

Jagvir Kaur v. State of Punjab

2011-05-06

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2011
JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. Both the aforesaid petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the same FIR has been challenged in both the petitions. 2. In both the petitions, the petitioners pray for quashing of FIR No. 532 dated 20.12.2005 under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar as well as order dated 04.02.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Jalandhar declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offender. 3. For facility of reference, the facts are being taken from CRM M 79900 of 2006. Petitioner Jagvir Kaur is a resident of Canada. Her eldest sister, namely, Varinder Kaur is married to the son of respondent No. 2 i.e. Parminder Singh, resident of Village Jamsher Khas, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The present FIR was got lodged by respondent No. 2 with the allegation that the petitioner and her family members backed out of engagement that had taken place between the petitioner and Gurpreet Singh who is son of the respondent. 4. Facts in short are that the parents of the petitioner had arranged her engagement with Gurpreet Singh son of Maan Singh-respondent No. 2 about five years earlier. In June, 2005, the petitioner, her parents and brother Raghbir Singh came from Canada to India for solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 and his son Gurpreet Singh demanded huge amount as dowry besides Safari Vehicle from the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have learnt that respondent No. 2 and his son were greedy persons. She as well as her parents were shocked and the petitioner refused to marry Gurpreet Singh. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 got the present FIR recorded against the petitioner,her parents and others on the allegation that the marriage of the petitioner and Gurpreet Singh was scheduled to be solemnized on 23.11.2005 and that he had already distributed wedding cards to his friends and relatives and that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-had been spent by him at the engagement ceremony and other programs for the marriage but the petitioner and her parents and brother after consultations had disappeared from the village and had gone back to Canada. Thus, he has been cheated. The petitioner, her brother and parents were declared Proclaimed offender as they were in Canada and could not come back to India. Thus, he has been cheated. The petitioner, her brother and parents were declared Proclaimed offender as they were in Canada and could not come back to India. However, the other three accused, namely, Sukhjit Singh, Baljinder and Harvinder Kaur appeared in the Court to face trial. The trial Court at the time of consideration of the charge, held that no offence was made out against them and accordingly, discharged them vide order dated 04.01.2006. 5. While praying for quashing of the FIR as well as the order declaring the petitioners proclaimed offender, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations were vague and unfounded and petitioner Jagvir Kaur had broken her engagement with the son of the respondent on account of the greedy for money on the part of respondent No. 2 and his son Gurpreet Singh. The petitioner has since got married to Jasbir Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of Village Jain, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur and respondent's son has since been married off. As such, the proceedings are nothing but a sheer misuse of process of law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that respondent bore the expenses of travel of the petitioner and that they had spent lot of money on the engagement and as such the offence is clearly made out. 7. Heard. 8. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 19.12.2006 passed the following order:- “Petitioner Jagvir Kaur is a resident of Canada. Her sister is married to brother of respondent No. 2. Present FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 with the allegation that the petitioner and her family backed out of engagement that had taken place between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. On that count, allegations have been made for offences unde Section 420, 406 and 120B IPC. Petitioner subsequently got married and settled in Canada. She was unmindful of the allegations made in this FIR and was declared proclaimed offender on 14.02.2006. Other family members, co-accused of the petitioner, were proceeded against and have since been discharged finding that no offence has been made out from the allegations made in the FIR and the arrangements alleged to have been made by respondent No. 2 were all in their possession and on that count, no offence would be made out against the petitioner of her co-accused. It is very strange that on such allegations, the present FIR has been recorded by the police. Co-accused have rightly been discharged. Counsel, in my opinion, is right in submitting that making the present petitioner to face prosecution in this case is clearly an abuse of process of Court. Notice of motion to AG Punjab for 27.04.2007. Further proceedings qua the petitioner are stayed. Meanwhile, petitioner may appeared before the trial Court.” 9. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on the request of the parties to settle the dispute amicably. The matter could not settled and ultimately after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the matter was admitted on 04.05.2010. 10. Meanwhile, the petitioners in pursuance to the order dated 04.05.2010 appeared before the trial Court. Their bail bonds were accepted and were accordingly released on bail. Thereafter, CRM 15079 of 2011 was moved, praying therein that the matter be listed for hearing on some actual date. Notice of motion was issued and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the matter was listed for hearing. 11. There is no allegation against the petitioners qua entrustment of any dowry articles. There is also no allegation that the petitioner made false representation to respondent No. 2. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations are vague and absolutely unfounded. In fact, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar too while discharging the co-accused of the petitioners recorded the following finding:- “So, I find that there is neither any entrustment of articles. The articles which were alleged purchased of Rs.10,00,000/-are still with the complainant. They are not given to anybody neither there was any representation from the side of the accused to the complainant or his son which was later on turned to be false and amounting to cheating. There was no inducement on their behalf as far as meting of mind is concerned.” 12. Besides the above facts, it is admitted that Jagbir Kaur has since got married to Jasbir Singh son of Mohinder Singh. It is also admitted that the son of the respondent has also got married. 13. Further, the dispute was also raised before the Provincial Court Alberta in Canada. The same was amicably settled between the parties before the Provincial Court at Alberta and the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the said Court is placed on record as P10. It is also admitted that the son of the respondent has also got married. 13. Further, the dispute was also raised before the Provincial Court Alberta in Canada. The same was amicably settled between the parties before the Provincial Court at Alberta and the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the said Court is placed on record as P10. The same reads as under:- “Both parties agree they owe nothing to each other and agree to decide both the claim and the counter claim.” 14. In a dispute of same nature, this Court in the case of Raje Ram and another v. Chander Bhan, reported as 1983 (2) RCR (Criminal) 413 held that in case the gifts given to the girl by in-laws are not returned, the same will not amount to criminal offence and went on to hold in para 4 that:- “4. The point to be considered in this petition is whether the customary gifts given by the complainant to the engaged girl Saroj Kumari at the time of the 'chuni' ceremony were given to her in trust and/or could these articles be in trust with the petitioners and their co-accused. As per the allegations in the complaint, these articles were gifted at the time of the engagement in observance of the customary ceremony of 'chuni'. Hardly can such an act be called ini placing those articles in the hands of the engaged girl or the accused persons in trust, express or implied, so as to fall within the meaning of Section 406 Indian Penal Code. At best, these articles might have become returnable dependent on the usage and practices prevalent in the community. But at the time when they were given and taken, it cannot be said that any kind of trust had been created with the accused persons. It is a different matter altogether that the accused persons may be civilly liable to return those articles. For that matter, the criminal court is not the right forum. For that purpose, the complainant has to knock the doors of the civil Court. The proceedings before the criminal court are thus clearly an abuse of the process of the Court requiring this Court to interfere at the initial stage.” 15. Coming back to the present case, the dispute here is of a broken engagement. Allegation are vague. For that purpose, the complainant has to knock the doors of the civil Court. The proceedings before the criminal court are thus clearly an abuse of the process of the Court requiring this Court to interfere at the initial stage.” 15. Coming back to the present case, the dispute here is of a broken engagement. Allegation are vague. No offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC is made out from the perusal of FIR. Both boy and girl have since got married and are residing with their respective spouses. Matter was also accordingly settled before the Courts at Alberta in Canada. Thus, the FIR is nothing but a misuse of the process of law. 16. In view of the discussion made above as well as taking into the fact that no offence under Sections 420, 406 IPC is made out against the present petitioners, FIR No. 532 dated 20.12.2005 under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar as well as order dated 04.02.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Jalandhar, declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offender and all subsequent proceedings are here by quashed. 17. Allowed in the above terms. 18. Copy of the order be placed on the connected file.