High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/4778/2018disposed of

Suraj Bahadur Mangla And ANR v. State Of Punjab And ANR

2024-07-1816 pages

!"# "$ "%""

" "$ "

() )

) )

) +

, -."

" /"

))) 01.

!"# "$ " ))).

) ( +

, .

#""$ " /"

))) 01.

!"# "$

))).

2) 223 +

, .

))) 01.

!"# "$ "

))).

4#/ ) !

. " . #"

! " # " . #"

( $ %&# ' '

() ( (*+ *+ #+*,-.

/01

! '

"23'(

#4 +& #+*& ! ' /

( . ') !()

223 *

/ 5 %&# ' '

( ) (632" *7*8 +8 #+*,( %4&/ 3' /9

) ((

6 ! (

'2 / / %,,&/#+*&

! 55

( ( 5 :5

#* +% #++, ( (2 +0#7+++;/5!

- 1 ( - // 51

( -// 51 $ 5 : ! !5 $ 52 *+ ( 5 ! // 5

! ( $ ! ! $

// 5 ! 5 5 ( ! (( (

5 5

5 ! ) 5!

5 ! ! 55) 3#++& ( 5!

$ 2 * 5!

9 !

5 5

( ! (5 2 * ( ($<#( 5( 5 5 !

3 = #++4 5>( ->1 (5 / 5 ?!5 5 // 5(.

(

) ! 5

5 ! // 5 $ #+** 3 ( 9 (! 5 5 > 5 5 (

) !5 !(! ( !/ 5( ) 55

(

> ) !

>? #+*#( 5> (5 9 5 5 (55 0

5 !

@> 5(! 5 5! 5 3 (5" #+*8 ( 5/ 5 3 #+*% (

>55 55 3? #+*% ( 5 5

) ! !

(

?. ! 5 (3? #+*% !

$ (5

5 > 5 . 5( ( 6(5

(( #+*7 (( !

! ( > 3 ( #+*0 3 (5 (((

? 632- 1 (

) ! ( - // 51

( -// 515+& +7 #+*, ## +7 #+*, ! = (

/ 5(>

B 632 ( ! /5.

#! -. /%1 !5! 6 !' > " 5 ! /5 (

(5 ! ((

( !

? !58+ ** #+*0

) !5 ! !

C) ) ! -.

/01!(

(

! 5 3

(

! ( (

(

B # (632- 15

() (

( !

!' 5 3 *+ *+ #+*, ! '

"23'(

%+03'632- 1 (

( !

( -// 51'2 / /%&0+#/ #+*,5! (!(

(

( 6 !' > ! (: ! 53 3 $ ! ((632 (

5 !

B ( (

!** +7 #+*& !5! !

-C) 1 5 ) !" 8%7*+ ** #+*0

-CD1 5 !

/55 -CD1 / " 0+,*0 +# #+*,5

(

! 5

3 5 3632- 1 ( !

#! ( !6 !' >*+! ( (

! !( !!

(#++, ( ( ( #* +% #++,+# +4 #+*7 ! #! 5! ?

&!5

!! 3 7!5 5

( ! !5 ! ( 3 ( 5

/ 5 ** +7 #+*& !

-C) 1 ( 5 (5! ? #+** 3

( 5 ( #+*+/**5 ! ( !/ 5 (#++,

5 ( ( 6

632- 15

(

! !!)

( ,

3 5 C( '

( ) 5 .(5 ''

5 !

C55 C('

(

632;' (

D !5/ (CA

) (( / ( 632 8#8 %+0 %4& 7+0 3' (

( !6325. !(#!

( ( ( = = 5

5( 5 5/

!" "

"##$ %& "" $ ' & &( $ "$ """

$$$&) * + , +

( &$ &$ & ( -& $)

$) * + , + $ $.+&& $$ +& " +", &+

% &" &$ -& " ( "/0

&+/0 & +&/0$ & -&

(((((( (((((( (((((( %+&

! "

$ # % &

''() % '' & /0 &1# !

$ " " $ $ $ $ $

& " $ $ ""&

& '( -& &) *

+.+&$&"2& 3&$ 3& $

&$& & % & 4& 4&

&&&" "+&& &" -& & ( & 2

&" & $&&" " & " ") &"

& # & &&& % ( $&) * +

$.+&"( $ & 5

&$ & -& $&"+&

* + , -&%% &

../0 &$ $ $&( % & +& $1 / 0'" " " 2 &

" &

"2&

/0' " "

&) 6!/ 0 +( & 7$& $ ) 66/0 +

/80'& "

" & " ""

"2&

& /0 '

& &# 5

", 9

7 "&) 66/0 +

/60'" " & " $ & -& & &

/!0'( + /&$

" &0 &

& :$

/;0' " " $"

:$ " &&$ &" $2

$"& & < 6

" "" $$& " & && &

% &$&&- " & & &" $ &$"$ - & " " &$ & """&

(((((( (((((( ((((((

% & $ & )&". +&$-& "2&3& & & ( $&) * + , + "" 5

$ & & &

1 2 3

* + ,

# 4

(7 84 2 9 # 9

:2 # 9 2 9 2 3# #

2 2 9

##;

(((((( (((((( (((((( & " +&< 9 =>

?!=> .

>, %/& &/4 = ,$4 0 ) * +,+$(" %$ $

& " .+& 2 $ & ) * +,+ ( -& & ! +&

" 3& & & " & (&&$ &" $2 & &" .+&$&2 $ "

$ & $& +& 2 "" :

" & $ &

& (& &$&2"

&" " " " $& &" $ < 8.

Similarly, a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 239 quashed the FIR under Section 498-A of the IPC against the mother-in-law and brotherin-law of the complainant and observed that the allegations were mostly

general and omnibus in nature making them incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Speaking through Justice Sanjay Kumar, the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. qua quashing of FIR stemming from offence under Section 498-A was also deliberated upon and the following observations were made: "12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v.

State of Maharashtra and others [Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v.

State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.

xxx xxx xxx

15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the `be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.

The objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 qua validity of the divorce decree granted by Family Court in U.K. on the

ground that the same was obtained by fraud and coercion by husband-Sunil Gupta is untenable. The husband as well as the wife attended and participated in the proceedings before the foreign Court and got their marriage dissolved on 02.09.2015 by way of one-time settlement between them. Admittedly, the complainant-wife approached U.K. police against Sunil Gupta due to harassment even after their divorce before finally returning back to India in August of 2016. Before returning to India, the complainant had ample time and opportunities to challenge the divorce decree if she was, in any way, coerced by her husband but she failed to do so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Alcon Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Celem SA of FOS 34320 Roujan (2017) 2 SCC 253 recorded the following: - "The principles of comity of nation demand us to respect the order of English Court. Even in regard to an interlocutory order, Indian courts have to give due weight to such order unless it falls under any of the exceptions under Section 13 CPC."

(/5 / 5 (

5 5 . ( !5= ( CA

' # 2

9 @9 # 2 9

%% ( (= > '

5 !

"" &) 8= .&7 " " ""$$

" &) 6 +", &+ & 2$$$ "

"$ % .

+& 3& " & -& 2& $$ " ;

> & $ & ""$ # """$#& "& &"&"" )$ ("

&" 2& &# & ""#&

$ $& " & "" ?

" $$ " "# &) 6 &" " $"+&$) 6+", & + $ ""$ &# &$$" " &

"" ""$ "$ "+& $ $ % $ $$& " ""$ $

&" & & & # " " "$ $ $ < '/ ' @ # >

!+ 5 9

.4( (= =$

5( ;

% -&" # 2

&3& $< 99

9 $ *#9 / &

'%4 3 * 2 + "

* 2 + &/

4&$ "$$

" & " %-&" < 99

9 $ *#9

&3& $ +& A$9

&/.A A@ @

!+ 5 '

.AA$

&% ,B&A+7#

7# ;8!;# * !

* A

9, "

.A <- 1 11.

Reverting back to the facts of the case at hand, it transpires that upon the complaint made by respondent no.2-wife, the matter was inquired into by the jurisdictional police and consequently an inquiry report dated 10.11.2016 was submitted by DSP (HQ), Patiala to by SSP, Patiala, wherein, the allegations levelled by her were found to be sans veracity and the said complaint was recommended to be consigned to the record room. Although, the aforesaid report was not accepted by SSP, Patiala, and a subsequent inquiry was ordered by him in which the findings recorded were obverse to the ones made initially, no justifiable reason for a second inquiry has been presented before this Court.

12.

After paying heed to the facts and circumstances of the present case and taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down in Achin Gupta (supra), this Court finds sufficient reason to invoke its inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the above-mentioned petitions are disposed of in the following terms: -

3'2 / /%&0+#/#+*,

( 5!

$() ( !

$ (" '2 / /%,,&/#+*&E'2 / /887%&/ #+*&

5 C632" *7*8 +8 #+*,(

%4&/3' / 9

) ( (

(

('2 -1! ( !

+" . #", !

$ &

() ) *

) ) -1 9(; F;" -1 9 F;"