The court emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes, and jurisdiction is essential for the validity of an FIR.

JUDGMENT

Mr. N .S.Shekhawat, J. (Oral)

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, offences under Sections 177, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC have been added later on.

2. The Registry of this Court is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the head note as well as prayer clause of the present petition and the offences under Sections 177, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC may be added in the present petition.

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR No. 80 dated 13.05.2022 under Sections 120 and 120B IPC (Sections 177, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC added later on), Police Station South Sector 34, Chandigarh, District Chandigarh (Annexure P-19) and all proceedings emanating therefrom primarily on the ground that the FIR was not only without jurisdiction but a civil dispute had been converted into a criminal offence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Richa Gupta, respondent No. 2/complainant was married to Adesh Gupta on 27.05.2017 at Baharpur Garden, Patiala. On the night intervening, 31.05.2019/01.06.2019 Master Advait Gupta/Aariket Madhavan (named so by the petitioners) was born. Unfortunately, on 22.07.2019, Adesh Gupta, husband of respondent No. 2 had expired. On 05.09.2019, a common relative of the petitioners and respondent No. 2, after coming to know that the respondent No. 2 and her in-law were looking for a couple, who could adopt her child, arranged a dialogue between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Even, the respondent No. 2 was aware of the fact that the petitioners, a couple was desirous of adopting a child. At the same time, respondent No. 2 and her family members were in a hurry to give Advait Gupta/Aariket Madhavan in adoption to some other couple as they had to perform remarriage of respondent No. 2. At that time, the petitioners were living in United States of America and their arrival would have taken some time. Consequently, the petitioners asked the sister of the petitioner No.2 to perform the "give and take ceremony", in view of the urgency of the matter and even photographs (Annexures P-1 and P-2) were clicked in the said ceremony, which had taken place in presence of 20 members of the family. Even, the complainant executed an affidavit (Annexure P-3) on the said day to the effect that she intended to re-marry after the death of her husband and she was willing to give her son in adoption to the present petitioners and it had happened with the understanding of both the families. Ultimately, on 22.11.2019, the petitioners came to India and petitioner No. 2 took the child in her custody and the petitioners approached the respondent No. 2 and her parents for further formal adoption also. On 03.12.2019, both the sides gathered again at the house of Ms. Rajni Gupta, common relative of both the parties at Patiala (Punjab) where the adoption was reduced into writing on the stamp paper of Rs. 1,000/-, which was purchased on 05.09.2019 itself. The respondent No. 2 and her father were signatories to the deed of adoption dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure P-4) and it was also signed by a common relative Jainender Gupta and the adoption deed was duly notarized at Patiala. Learned counsel further submitted that with an oblique motive, the respondent No. 2 changed her mind and filed complaint dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P-5) and complaint (Annexure P-6) to the Chandigarh Police and other authorities. However, no action was taken on the same and the petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 820/2020 (Annexure P-7) for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to secure the release of alleged detenue Master Advait Gupta/Aariket Madhavan, who was in the alleged illegal custody of the petitioner and their family members. The petitioners also filed a reply to the said writ petition and a specific stand was taken by the petitioners that the respondent No.2/petitioner in the writ petition had her