Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2583 (PNJ)

Iqbal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2019-09-18

GURVINDER SINGH GILL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR No.72 dated 7.6.2016 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar. 2. The aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant namely Simranjit Kaur wherein it has been alleged that she was married to Anwar Nahal on 12.3.2011 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. It is alleged that before her marriage, the complainant's 'Bua' (aunt) and 'Fuffar' (uncle) i.e. the present petitioners who are the mediators to the marriage had told the complainant's family that they know Anwar Nahal and his family very well and upon their representation, the marriage was fixed and was solemnized with great pomp and show wherein the complainant's parents spent an amount of Rs. 9 lacs. It is alleged that thereafter the accused i.e. the complainant's husband Anwar Nahal, his parents as well as the mediators i.e. the present petitioners were related to the complainant, being his uncle and aunt raised a demand of Rs. 5 lacs on the ground that since the complainant is to be sent abroad, the said amount would be used for purchasing articles for her when she would go to Canada. It is further alleged that various gold ornaments were handed over to the accused and that the petitioners, being mediators, were also given gold rings and clothes. It is alleged that immediately after the marriage, the accused, however, started taunting her for having brought less dowry and that even the petitioner also did not speak approvingly. It is alleged that complainant's husband started threatening the complainant that he is NRI and may go abroad any time after leaving the complainant. The complainant further asserted therein that her husband stayed in India for about 1-1/2 months after marriage and during the said period, he repeatedly used to ask the complainant for bringing amount from her parents so that he could take care of the complainant abroad. The allegations have been levelled against the husband and other accused. The complainant has alleged that upon her repeated requests, the accused sent documents for her visa but her husband intentionally did not familiarize the complainant with the necessary formalities in the matter and rather raised demand for making an arrangement of Rs. The allegations have been levelled against the husband and other accused. The complainant has alleged that upon her repeated requests, the accused sent documents for her visa but her husband intentionally did not familiarize the complainant with the necessary formalities in the matter and rather raised demand for making an arrangement of Rs. 20 lacs to take her abroad and subsequently, on account of non-cooperation of her husband, Canadian Embassy refused to grant visa to complainant. It is, thus, alleged that the petitioners had played with the life of the complainant by colluding with complainant's husband and her parents and had grabbed ornaments, clothes and cash. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the present case on account of the fact that the relationship between the complainant and her husband became strained. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners have been implicated, being mediators to the marriage, although they happened to be related to the complainant's family and not to the family of complainant’s husband being 'Bua' (aunt) and 'Fuffar' (uncle) of the complainant. The learned counsel has further submitted that the FIR came to be lodged on account of the fact that the complainant was not granted visa by the Embassy of Canada and for which the complainant is holding her husband responsible. It has further been submitted that in any case even as per the FIR, it is only two gold rings and suits, which were given to the petitioners in the capacity of they being mediators and the same are in the nature of customary gifts which are given to mediators at the time of marriage and cannot treated to be as 'Ishtridhan' so as to attract any offence under Section 406 IPC, much less Section 498-A IPC. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are citizens of Canada and have always been residing abroad barring a few visits to India and as such had no occasion for harassing the complainant, as is being alleged by her. 4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant has submitted that since the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR and are mediators to the marriage, their complicity in the commission of offences is apparent and as such, no case for quashing of FIR is made out. 4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant has submitted that since the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR and are mediators to the marriage, their complicity in the commission of offences is apparent and as such, no case for quashing of FIR is made out. It has further been submitted that the conduct of the petitioners has not been above board and infact they had earlier been declared proclaimed offenders and subsequently, even after grant of bail, their conduct have not been upto the mark and they had misused the concession of bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are related to the complainant's herself being 'Bua' (aunt) and 'Fuffar' (uncle). It is also not disputed that the petitioners happened to be mediators to the marriage. It is borne out that the petitioners are aged 71 and 69 years respectively and are settled in Canada, being citizens of Canada, as would be evident from the copies of passports annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4. A perusal of the FIR would show that the complainant is mainly aggrieved on account of the fact that her husband did not do the needful for getting her visa issued and was rather demanding an amount of Rs. 20 lacs for taking her abroad. Although, general allegations against all the accused have been levelled in this regard but it was primarily her husband, who was to do the needful for taking the petitioner abroad. As per the FIR, the petitioner were given two rings and some suits at the time of marriage and that too in their capacity of being mediators, which would justify to be called as customary gifts to the mediators. While the marriage had taken place in the year 2011, the FIR came to be lodged in the year 2016. The role of mediators, at best, would have been at the time of marriage only. As already noticed above, the mediators were infact relatives of the complainant herself. 6. While the marriage had taken place in the year 2011, the FIR came to be lodged in the year 2016. The role of mediators, at best, would have been at the time of marriage only. As already noticed above, the mediators were infact relatives of the complainant herself. 6. Keeping in view the aforestated position and the fact that the petitioners are permanent residents of Canada, being citizens of Canada, and had no role to play in taking the complainant abroad, it is evident that they have been implicated merely on account of the fact that they were mediators to a marriage, which did not work well. The allegations as levelled in the FIR would not constitute any offence under Section 498-A or Section 406 IPC against the petitioners. Consequently, the petition is accepted and FIR No.72 dated 7.6.2016 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar and the entire proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.