Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 839
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijender Singh Malik
Criminal Misc. No. M-32215 of 2010 (O&M)
Jaswant Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 16/07/2012}
For the Petitioners:Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate.
For the State: Ms. Sonia Dhillon, AAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. A.S.Jattana, Advocate.
Quashing--Fact that challan has been filed and trial has begun would not prevent High Court from quashing the FIR if allegations are found to be false .
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing--Criminal Breach of Trust--Non returning of dowry/stridhan--There was no matrimonial discord between before complainant left for Canada--Shehas 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 that date--Complaint liable to be quashed--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406. (Para 16)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406--Quashing--Criminal Breach of Trust--Fact that challan has been filed and trial has begun would not prevent High Court from quashing the FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings--Allegations 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--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482. (Paras 17 & 18)
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. 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
