JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Crl. Misc. No. 39727 of 2012 Application is allowed. Annexure P3 is taken on record and petitioners are exempted from filing certified copy thereof. Main Petition 2. This is a petition brought under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C. by Jaswant Singh and four others for quashing of FIR No. 96 dated 30.7.2010 registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala for an offence punishable under section 406 of Indian Penal Code alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom to prevent abuse of process of the court. 3. Yashandeep Kaur, respondent No.2 is the complainant in this case and petitioners No.1 to 5 are the persons against whom she has lodged the complaint. She has claimed that she is a Non Resident Indian (NRI) and is permanent resident of Canada. She has claimed that she is presently residing at village Dhanaula, District Barnala. She has claimed that her marriage was solemnized with Kanwarjit Singh, petitioner No. 3 on 24.2.2009 at village Dhanaula by way of Anand-karaj ceremony. A sum of Rs.15.00 lacs was paid in cash as dowry to accused no. 1 to 5. Apart from the same, gold ornaments weighing 32 tolas and other items had been given to the accused, the details of which are given in the FIR. She has claimed that at the time of handing over the above said dowry articles, it was made clear that it was istri-dhan of the complainant and the accused were required to hand over these articles and cash to the complainant on demand. The accused accepted those ornaments etc. subject to the aforesaid stipulation and agreed to hold them in trust for her. She has claimed that the gold was already lying at the house of the complainant and ornaments were got prepared from M.D.Sirajuddin Jewellers, Barnala. She has further claimed that Kanwarjit Singh had married with the petitioner only for the reason that she was a permanent resident card-holder of Canada and that he also wanted to shift to Canada. 3. The complainant further claims that on 28.4.2009 she left for Canada and on 9.10.2009, Kanwarjit Singh was also called there. Kanwarjit Singh and his father Shinder Singh are said to have raised a demand for another sum of Rs.16.00 lacs as dowry on 23.12.2009 in Canada. Mother of the complainant expressed her helplessness in paying such a huge amount. 3. The complainant further claims that on 28.4.2009 she left for Canada and on 9.10.2009, Kanwarjit Singh was also called there. Kanwarjit Singh and his father Shinder Singh are said to have raised a demand for another sum of Rs.16.00 lacs as dowry on 23.12.2009 in Canada. Mother of the complainant expressed her helplessness in paying such a huge amount. This infuriated Kanwarjit Singh, husband of the complainant and he left the complainant and joined his parents in Brampton-Toronto. He returned after a month to the complainant at Surrey (Canada). She further claimed that on 4.3.2010, she was beaten up mercilessly at Surrey. The complainant demanded her istri-dhan from Kanwarjit Singh on 6.3.2010 but he refused to return the same. The complainant went to Brampton-Toronto and demanded her istri-dhan from accused no. 2 to 4 and they also flatly refused to return the same on 7.3.2010. The complainant has claimed that on 11.5.2010, she returned to India and on 13.5.2010 she demanded her articles of istri-dhan back from Jaswant Singh, petitioner no.1, but he also flatly refused to return the same. Claiming that the accused have cheated her and have also committed the offence of criminal breach of trust, she has lodged the report. 4. On notice, the respondents opposed the petition. The State has filed reply by way of affidavit of Rupinder Kumar Bhardwaj, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barnala. It is claimed that the petition is not maintainable and that the petitioners could raise all these pleas before the Magistrate at the time of framing of charges. It is also claimed that the petitioners are required to join the investigation and subjected to custodial interrogation for recovery of articles of istri-dhan. It is also claimed that as none of the petitioners, except Jaswant Singh, petitioner No.1 is in India, the petition qua them should not be entertained. It is also claimed that during investigation, the allegations of the complainant have been substantiated by various witnesses. It is also averred that the matter was duly investigated and even legal opinion of Deputy District Attorney had been obtained in the matter. 5. Respondent No.2 has also filed the reply. She has tried to support the allegations made in the FIR. It is also averred that the petition is not maintainable because the petitioners can raise all these pleas before the Magistrate at the time of framing of charges. 5. Respondent No.2 has also filed the reply. She has tried to support the allegations made in the FIR. It is also averred that the petition is not maintainable because the petitioners can raise all these pleas before the Magistrate at the time of framing of charges. She has claimed that during investigation, her allegations were found to be correct. It is also averred that the petition should not be entertained qua petitioners No. 2 to 5 who are not living in India. The FIR is alleged to have been lodged on true facts. 6. I have heard Mr. Mansur Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sonia Dhillon, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State and Mr. A.S.Jattana, learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have gone through the record carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No. 2 was married with Kanwarjit Singh on 24.2.2009. According to him, she left India for Canada on 28.4.2009 and she was joined by Kanwarjit Singh, her husband there on 9.10.2009. According to him, the FIR is clearly silent about any act on the part of the petitioners attracting any criminal offence till this date. According to him, she has alleged some gold ornaments and other articles to have been entrusted to petitioners No. 1 to 5 in the FIR with the express stipulation that they were articles of her istri-dhan and were to be returned to her on demand. According to him, there is no allegation of any demand made by her till 28.4.2009 when she left for Canada. He has further submitted that thereafter, she claims that a demand of Rs.16.00 lacs was made upon her by Kanwarjit Singh and his father Shinder Singh on 23.12.2009 in Canada. He has further submitted that annoyed with the inability of the complainant to satisfy this demand, Kanwarjit Singh left Surrey where he was living with the complainant and went to his parents at Brampton-Toronto. He has further submitted that he returned to her on 9.2.2010 and gave her merciless beating on 4.3.2010. According to him, she has further alleged that she made a demand of her istri-dhan upon accused Nos. 2 to 5 in Canada itself and they refused to return her articles. He has further submitted that the complainant made a report against Kanwarjit Singh and in this regard, he drew my attention to Annexure P2. According to him, she has further alleged that she made a demand of her istri-dhan upon accused Nos. 2 to 5 in Canada itself and they refused to return her articles. He has further submitted that the complainant made a report against Kanwarjit Singh and in this regard, he drew my attention to Annexure P2. According to him, vide this document, she reported act of violence of Kanwarjit Singh towards her. He submitted that thereafter she claimed to have returned to India on 11.5.2010 and to have made a demand of articles of her istri-dhan upon petitioner No.1, named, Jaswant Singh, who is also stated to have refused to return the same. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Jaswant Singh, petitioner No.1 is brother of father-in-law of Yashandeep Kaur and it is hard to believe that any istri-dhan of the complainant would have been entrusted to him with the stipulation that the same would be returned to her by him on her demand. According to him, barring this allegation, nothing is alleged to have happened in India attracting any offence much less the offence punishable under section 406 IPC. He has further submitted that no prosecution for an offence committed outside India could be launched in India except with previous sanction of Central Government as is envisaged by the proviso appended to section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He has drawn my attention in this regard to a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2008 (3) RCR (Crl.) 135 where the accused has been a citizen of Mauritius and her son and his wife had been residing in Kuwait. The complaint was filed under section 498-A IPC by the wife in India against her husband and mother-in-law. The offence was committed in Kuwait and for this reason, the complaint was quashed. It has also been held therein that in this matter section 4 IPC and section 188 Cr.P.C. were not even applicable. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the challan has been filed by the police in this case but that would also not come in the way of quashing the FIR. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the challan has been filed by the police in this case but that would also not come in the way of quashing the FIR. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and others, [2011(5) Law Herald (SC) 3792] : 2011(7) SCC 59 , where it has been laid down that the FIR could be quashed even after the charge sheet had been filed. 10. Learned State counsel has submitted that trial in this case is going on and two witnesses out of 13 cited at the trial have been examined. 11. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the marriage of the complainant with Kanwarjit Singh had been solemnized at Dhanaula. According to him, dowry was given to the petitioners at Dhanaula itself. According to him, it is not a case for an offence punishable under section 498-A IPC where cruelty is required to be shown as committed towards the complainant in India. He has further submitted that the report lodged against the petitioners is for an offence punishable under section 406 IPC and the said offence had been committed by the petitioners in India. 12. The contents of FIR are clear enough to show that there was no matrimonial discord between Yashandeep Kaur and Kanwarjit Singh before she left for Canada on 28.4.2009. The complainant has not even alleged that before leaving for Canada, she had demanded the ornaments or other articles allegedly entrusted to the petitioners at the time of marriage. There is no allegation of any demand of dowry and consequent harassment of the complainant at the hands of the petitioners in India before this date. 13. The complainant left India on 28.4.2009 and returned to India only on 11.5.2010. It is a fact that her husband and her in-laws, namely, Shinder Singh Bhullar, Jaswinder Kaur Bhullar and Mandeep Kaur Bhullar are still in Canada. Whatever Kanwarjit Singh did to her by way of demand of dowry or beating her, had been done at Surrey (Canada) and not in India. The demand allegedly made by Shinder Singh was also made there on 23.12.2009. She even demanded the dowry articles entrusted to them at that place and they refused to return the same there itself. Whatever Kanwarjit Singh did to her by way of demand of dowry or beating her, had been done at Surrey (Canada) and not in India. The demand allegedly made by Shinder Singh was also made there on 23.12.2009. She even demanded the dowry articles entrusted to them at that place and they refused to return the same there itself. So breach of trust, if any would have been committed by petitioners No. 2 to 5 in Canada and not in India. 14. What is alleged to have been given to Jaswant Singh, petitioner No.1, who is uncle of Kanwarjit Singh, the husband of the complainant, is a ring weighing 500 gms. and clothes worth Rs.2.00 lacs. The complainant does not say that the ring given to Jaswant Singh was of gold. Assuming it to be of gold, it cannot be believed that the ring would have weighed 500 gms. Even if it is taken that the description of the ring is mistaken then even nothing sensible could be made out by assuming some decimal at any place in this figure. 15. The complainant has claimed that clothes worth Rs.2.00 lacs were also given to him. In the entire narration of the entrustment of gold items to other petitioners, it is not mentioned that clothes were given to them. If it is said that no cloth was given to them and clothes were given only to Jaswant Singh, then it makes no sense. The clothing worth Rs.2.00 lacs cannot be believed to have been given to uncle-in-law of the complainant. If the clothing worth Rs.2.00 lacs had been meant for all the five persons then clothing had been the items of gifts given to the in-laws of the complainant and were never expected to be returned to her. There is no allegation that this clothing worth Rs.2.00 lacs was of the complainant herself. Had it been so, then it would not have been entrusted to her uncle-in-law when her husband, Kanwarjit Singh, fatherin- law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were there. Looking from any angle, the allegation about entrustment of a ring weighing 500 gms. There is no allegation that this clothing worth Rs.2.00 lacs was of the complainant herself. Had it been so, then it would not have been entrusted to her uncle-in-law when her husband, Kanwarjit Singh, fatherin- law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were there. Looking from any angle, the allegation about entrustment of a ring weighing 500 gms. and clothes worth Rs.2.00 lacs to Jaswant Singh, petitioner No.1, appears to be false and when this allegation itself appears to be false, no reliance can be placed on the allegation that returning to India, the complainant would go to petitioner No.1 and would demand the said items back. Since there is no allegation qua other petitioners of their doing anything in India attracting the offence punishable under section 406 IPC or any other offence, this prosecution in India is not maintainable. 16. Even if it is taken that such prosecution can be initiated in India, section 188 Cr.P.C. requires the same to be initiated with previous sanction of the Central Government, which has not been obtained in this case. The fact that challan has been filed in this case and trial has begun would not prevent this court from quashing the FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, as is laid down in Joseph Salvaraj A.’s case (supra). 17. In these circumstances, the allegations of the complainant/respondent No.2 contained in the FIR are found to be false and prosecution of the petitioners by the complainant in this case clearly appears to be an abuse of process of law. Consequently, I accept this petition and quash FIR No. 96 dated 30.7.2010 registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala for an offence punishable under section 406 IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. ---------0.B.S.0------------