SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 912

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia
Versus
State Of Punjab & Others
Criminal Appeal No. 908 of 2009 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1793 of 2008]
Decided on : 05-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Annam D.N. Rao, Advocate. For the Respondents:Vineet Dhanda, JP. Dhanda, Raj Rani Dhanda, Amrendra Kr. Singh, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC should be exercised in exceptional cases like the present one which apparently is abuse of the process of law.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – FIR filed u/s 406/420 IPC – Superintendent of Police recommending cancellation of FIR – Charge sheet filed – Disputes arising between husband and wife after three years of marriage – Larger part of offence, if any, has been committed only in Canada – Father of respondent no. 3 coming all the way from Canada to Jalandhar to lodge the FIR after five years of marriage and only after the appellant filed divorce petition in Canada – No evidence of dowry demand – Ingredients of section 415 and 420 not made out – High Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482. (Para 15)

       (2002) 3 SCC 89; (2003) 3 SCC 11; 2007 (12) SCALE 391; 2008 (16) SCALE 167; 2009 (5) SCALE 418 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent No. 3 was married with one Ravinder Singh Jaspal in Canada in the year 1995. A son was born out of the said wedlock on or about 25.8.1996. As disputes and differences arose between them, respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit for grant of divorce on or about 30.9.1998. In the said proceedings, a decree for divorce was granted by a Canadian court on or about 22.4.2000.

       Almost immediately thereafter, that is, on 21.5.2000, respondent No.3 and appellant No.1 got married at Jalandhar as per Sikh rites. After a months stay in India, respondent No. 3 left for Canada. On or about 6.3.2001, respondent No.3 gave birth to a female child in Canada. Appellant No.1 went to Canada on the sponsorship of respondent No.3 on 14.4.2001. He got an employment there as a driver.

       Disputes and differences arose between the appellant No.1 and the respondent No.3 in the year 2003. Allegedly, she left with all her belongings and withdrew Canadian $ 24500 from the joint account of the parties.

       Disputes and differences again arose between the parties in the year 2006 as a result whereof they started living separately with effect from 29.3.2006.

       It is only thereafter, the father of the respondent No. 3, namely Inder Pal Singh, a retired Police Inspector and permanent resident of Canada, while on a trip to India, lodged a complaint against the appellants under Section 406/420 IPC on or about 21.4.2006 along with an affidavit of respondent No.3 inter alia alleging that the appellants demanded dowry and misappropriated the dowry articles.

       In view of separation between appellant No.1 and respondent No.3, appellant filed a second divorce petition on or about 1.5.2006 in the Superior Court of Brampton, Ontario seeking divorce and custody of the child.

       An FIR was registered under Section 406/420 IPC at Division No. 4, Jalandhar. The Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar made an enquiry with regard to the aforementioned matter. He recommended closer of the suit/case.

       However, despite the same, a charge-sheet was issued. In the mean time, divorce application filed by the appellant in Canada, were allowed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by its order dated 19.10.2007.

       On receipt of the summons, appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code which has been dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court ought to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC.

       Result:

       Appeal allowed.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 13.12.2007 passed by a learned single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-40020 of 2007 dismissing an application praying for quashing FIR No. 141 dated 30.5.2006 under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code")

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellant No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.3. The other appellants are his parents. Respondent No. 3 was married with one Ravinder Singh Jaspal in Canada in the year 1995. A son was born out of the said wedlock on or about 25.8.1996. As disputes and differences arose between them, respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit for grant of divorce on or about 30.9.1998. In the said proceedings, a decree for divorce was granted by a Canadian court on or about 22.4.2000. Almost immediately thereafter, that is, on 21.5.2000, respondent No.3 and appellant No.1 got married at Jalandhar as per Sikh rites. After a months stay in India, respondent No. 3 left for Canada. On or about 6.3.2001, respondent No.3 gave birth to a female child in Canada. Appellant No.1 went to Canada on the sponsorship of respondent No.3 on 14.4.2001. He got an employment there as a driver.

Disputes and differences arose between the appellant No.1 and the respondent No.3 in the year 2003. Allegedly, she left with all her belongings and withdrew Canadian $ 24500 from the joint account of the parties.

It is neither denied nor disputed that she had been contacting lawyers with regard to her matrimonial disputes and even cancelled the sponsorship of the application for grant of permanent residence of appellant No.1 as also his family.

In those circumstances, Appellant No.1 initiated a divorce proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, inter alia, stating:

"On 28th August, 2003, when the applicant had gone to work, the respondent left the matrimonial home to live with her parents. She took with her all her personal effects, jewelleries and withdrew $23,000.00 from their joint bank account.

The respondent is threatening to hurt herself and get the applicant involved with the police to deport him from Canada.

The applicant is afraid and believes, that if she is allowed to come back to his home, she may hurt herself or may hurt the applicant.

The respondent wants the applicant to be deported and may do anything to cause physical violence.

Inderpal Singh is the father of the respondent, Paramjit Kaur and the father in law of the applicant.

Surinder Singh is the brother of the respondent, Paramjit Kaur and the brother-in-law of the applicant."

However, differences between them were sorted out and respondent No.3 affirmed an affidavit on or about 30.9.2003 admitting her mistake, stating:

"On September 20, 2003, I decided to return to the house of my husband without advising him that I was coming back. My husband is reluctant and fearful to have me back in the house. I have promised my husband that I would not harass him any more and that I am very sorry for all the problems that I have created for him.

I am making this affidavit to satisfy the concerns and fear of my husband, HARMANPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA with respect to my motive of returning to his house. Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia fears that I have voluntarily returned to him cause more damage and problems for him. I have, however, returned to my husband because I have realized that I had made a big mistake by taking the steps mentioned above and I am truly remorseful for my actions."

On or about 5.2.2006, parents of appellant No.1 visited Canada as appellant No.2 developed a heart problem.

Disputes and differences again arose between the parties in the year 2006 as a result whereof they started living separately with effect from 29.3.2006.

It is only thereafter















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top