The main legal point established was the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated illegally or vexatiously.

Shekher Dhawan, J.

Present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.] is for quashing of FIR No. 229 dated 5.12.2013 (Annexure P/6) registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala and report [Annexure P/7] under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Facts relevant for the decision of the present petition; that in April, 2009, Daljit Kaur, petitioner No.2 had gone to Australia on Study Visa. The marriage of petitioner No. 2 was performed with Hardeep Singh, respondent No.3 on 31.10.1999 and for that purpose, petitioner No.2 came to India in September, 2009. After performance of marriage, petitioner no. 2 had gone to Australia on 29.12.2009. Efforts were made to obtain visa of Hardeep Singh, respondent no. 3 as well, but Austraian Government refused visa to him on 29.3.2010 (Annexure P/1). Petitioner No. 2 again applied for visa of respondent No. 3, but same was refused again by Australian Government on 15.04.2011 (Annexure P/3). In December, 2011, petitioner No. 2 again came to India for her brother's wedding and had gone back to Australia on 9.1.2012. As respondent No. 3 could not get the visa, petitioner No. 2 got a decree of divorce in Australia and respondent No. 2 got registered the present FIR on 5.12.2013 against the petitioners, i.e., after four years of the marriage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No. 2 has got registered the present FIR on totally incorrect facts and because of his political connections whereas, there was no occasion for the present petitioners to commit the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC and as such, the present FIR be quashed because the continuation of any proceedings on the basis of such false and frivolous FIR shall be miscarriage of justice. In support of his arguments, reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, 1988 (1) RCR (Crl.) 565.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that in fact, petitioner No. 2 had performed marriage with Hardeep Singh, respondent No. 2 on 31.10.2009 as per Sikh rites and at that time, complainant Dharam Singh, respondent No.2, had given 16 tolas of gold to to petitioner No.2. She had also received a sum of Rs. 7.00 lakhs including visa fee from time to time. After performance of marriage, petitioner No. 2 came back India twice and stayed in their house and on the pretext that her brother's marriage was going to be performed, she had taken 6 tolas of more gold from them. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 did not make any phone call for a period of over one year. It was on 1.1.2013 that they received a letter from Australia indicating that there was some divorce order from Australian Court. Respondent No. 2 tried to contact Charanjit Kaur, petitioner No. 1 herein, (mother of petitioner No.2), but she was not available and their house was found locked. Thereafter, he took up the matter with the Sarpanch of their village as well, but to no effect and as such, the present FIR was got registered against the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel representing respondents No. 2 and 3 also contended that there are no grounds for quashing of present FIR. More so, the FIR was registered on the basis of enquiry conducted by senior police officers on the complaint made by respondent No.2 and the present petition be dismissed.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that most of the facts are no disputed that Daljit Kaur, petitioner No.2 got married with respondent No. 3 on 13.10.2009. Efforts were made by petitioner No.2 so as to arrange visa for respondent No. 3 but his visa was refused by the Australian Government twice and the circumstances were beyond the control and power of the petitioners in any way.

7. There is nothing on t