High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/34635/2022allowed

Manpreet Kaur And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

2024-03-15Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja12 pages

!"!#$!%&' #&(&)!%&'*

Manpreet Kaur and another .......... Petitioners

State of Punjab and another .......... Respondents ' + , - .-

Present:

Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for petitioner No.2. Mr. Siddharath Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No. 2$complainant.

**** .-

/ The petitioners, by way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks quashing of FIR No. 38 dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P$1) under Sections 420 & 120$B of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala (Punjab) alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

01 The FIR (supra) is primarily based on an alleged breach of agreement dated 17.08.2020 &&!2(#! executed between the father of petitioner No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2$complainant. Relevant extract from the agreement dated 17.08.2020 followed by the extract from the FIR (supra), are re$produced hereunder:$

#$%&

& (((&

)

& *

* (( $&

& +

./"

( 0 1

& $*

* ((&

& "

((

(

2$#$%3 ( 33 '

* ((

((

'+ $

(( $

(4.# " ((

462#

$7#7## $ & (('

(

+ ( &

(( & ' '

& ((

& '

((

* ((+

((

* ((+ '

(( (

)

((

$( & $28

((

)

" ( &

" ( ((

((

* ((+ & (( ( ) "

& ((*

* ((( ) &

(

+ ( 9

9 3(&

: !

! 9;

9 &(

" ! "

(( ,

& !

& "

< 9 &

& ((

& (("

& (((

( "

( &(

& ((

) "

(

9 (( & '

9 "

"( 9

& ( #.#%#$%'!&

4 '"3

( 9

& + & !+(

+(( + 9=

-(( ,

& &

;

#$% "

(

> &

" 3 ( 93' 3 '& ", "" ,

' (

* & !

! 9 ! 2$#$% - >

? ##

@= 93

! "

, " (42A9##9###B '

< "

& " &

3 '

('"

)

" ('

(

< (

9& "

& " "

((

5 "

& 9 &(

(( &

#$#9

< 9 &

" ;

(

)

( & &

(' "

@ ( "

< ) C

9 )

(

((

< ) "

& ((

& &

(

& "

(

( 9

& (('

((

(

@&( "

(

& "

(

)

&((

" 42A9##9###B

((

& )

)

< 9

) ( (

)

"9 " 42A9##9###B (

)

(

< (

E 0 1 Impugning the aforesaid FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the contents of agreement and the FIR were taken at face value, at best, the present was a case of breach of terms of agreement and there was no element of cheating involved. Learned counsel pointed out towards the covenants under the agreement dated 17.08.2020, whereby in case of any delaying in tactics being adopted by petitioner No. 1 in calling respondent No.2 to Canada or petitioner No.1 getting remarried in Canada, petitioner No. 2 at best was bound to return the amount alongwith interest and thus, the proper remedy for respondent No. 2 or his father was to file a suit for recovery by seeking enforcement of the agreement dated 17.08.2020. Relevant portion of the agreement dated 17.08.2020 in this regard is re$ produced hereunder:$

((

* ((+ '

(( (

)

((

$( & $28

((

)

" (

" ( ((E 0 *1 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the entire FIR, it was nowhere alleged that right from inception, there was any dishonest or fraudulent intent, apparent on the part of petitioner No. 1 or her

father, so as to make respondent No.2 or his father to part with the money for sending petitioner No. 1 abroad or spending towards her education there and thus, no offence under Sections 420 & 120$B of IPC was made out. He also submits that even as per the records, the agreement dated 17.08.2020 was executed between the parents of the parties i.e. Bhola Singh, father of respondent No. 2 and Balwinder Singh (petitioner No. 2), father of petitioner No. 1 and as such, no complaint as regards cheating on its basis could have been entertained at the instance of respondent No. 2$Gurdeep Singh Gill. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer made in the present petition, while submitting that the petitioners having made respondent No. 2 and his family to spend on her education have chosen not to take respondent No.

2 abroad and as such, committed an act of cheating; thus, the FIR in question warrants no interference. Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 also opposed the prayer made herein while submitting that the FIR in question was registered after a thorough inquiry being conducted by the investigating agency having associated the petitioners therein, followed by filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as well as farming of charges by the Court concerned upon the material available on the file vide order dated 17.10.

opinion based on the material available on record, the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not called for in order to quash the FIR in question. For the said purpose, he placed reliance upon latest decision rendered by this Court in case )*+,- . "/0 12, #&

#33,& !. Learned counsel also submitted that once the charge was

framed by the trial Court vide its order dated 17.10.2023, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners was to assail the same in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., rather than, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR.

*1 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also placed reliance upon the documents attached to the written statement to contend that petitioner No.1 having reached Canada, sent certain messages to respondent No.2$ complainant for the purpose of enabling him to migrate to Canada, however, during the inquiry conducted by the police officials, petitioner No.1 could not produce any document to support the same. 1 Referring to the contents of the FIR coupled with the final report, learned counsel for respondent No.2$complainant pointed out that a clear cut case of dishonest intention on the part of petitioners, right from the inception, was clearly made out and thus, there was no occasion for this Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While referring to Annexure R$2/1, learned counsel respondent No.2 also pointed out that the version mentioned therein was in total contrast to the stand taken in the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper$book/relevant record and I find substance in submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the petitioners. During arguments as well as in his reply, respondent No 2 has admitted the execution of the agreement between his father and petitioner No 2. Sum and substance of this agreement is that all the future expenses regarding the studies of petitioner No 1 at Canada, in

addition to Rs. 30 lakh already paid by him, will be borne by the father of re$ spondent No 2 and in turn, petitioner No 1 will be bound to finish the paper$ work and call her husband i.e. respondent No 2 to Canada. At the same time, consequences in case of breach of this agreement were also specified therein and it was duly recorded that petitioner No 2 shall be bound to return what$ ever money is spent along with 1.5% interest and if they do not return, father of respondent No 2 shall recover the entire amount legally along with interest.

It is not the case of respondent No 2/complainant that this agreement was entered under some coercion, rather the father of respondent No.2/complainant entered into this agreement with eyes wide open, respondent No 2 also being fully aware about this factual position. In agree$ ment, it was categorically specified that father of respondent No.2/ complainant would be entitled only for the recovery of money spent by him through legally permissible ways. Having entered into this agreement, the only recourse available to respondent No 2 is to approach Civil Court for the recovery of money as the liability in the present case is only civil. After restricting his options by way of this agreement, respondent No 2 is not entitled to give criminal colour to the present case so as to pressurize the petitioners.

Once an agreement has been entered between the parties specifying the consequences of the breach as well, then registration of the FIR and initiation of the criminal proceedings by respondent No 2 for the breach of the agreement clearly amounts to abuse of the process of law and the judicial process.

There is also substance in the another argument raised by ld. Counsel for the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be held that right from the inception, there was any dishonest or fraudulent intent or inducement by petitioners. Marriage in the present case was held on 25.12.2019, while the agreement was registered on 17.08.2020. Execution of the agreement nullifies the case of respondent No.2 because of the fact that in the agreement it was duly mentioned that both the parties were happily leading their married life. Therefore, the requirement of dishonest intentions from the inception so as to attract any offence under Section 420 IPC was never fulfilled in the present case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment Of Hon'ble Apex Court in 56#768 6"79(%%7& $ -:6:! ;< %(=%7 >7)! -:6:7&5 the ld. Counsel for the petitioner. Relevant para of the same is reproduced here under:

$$ "

) !

6# +9

(

) "

(

9 9 1

1 ( (

(

9 (

" , "

& " E 0?1 Judgment in 6"@6>.6(#'s case, which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent No 2, did not held as a principle

of law that once charges have been framed, this Court cannot exercise its power u/s 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, rather it was merely an observation in the form of obiter in relation to the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced here under: $6-

(

&(( (

& ((

(

( (

(

9& ("

9 )

((

5 4 (

$A.+ +9& ("

& (( ((( D

E 0*1 A perusal of the aforesaid reveals that this point was neither ar$ gued nor there was any discussion as such on this aspect. To the contrary, judgment relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the petitioners in 5 &6&%.( 86#96::6$-:6:!$: !>975, reported as 2019(11) SCC 706, upheld the counter position. Relevant para from this judgment are reproduced here under:

4,3 $25

9& &(( '

+ ( 4

5 4

!() <-)! *< 9 #$$0.14+40+

(1.0#$$1A!++2%

!() <-0

19 + &

+ (

5 49&

& (

F$9 "

(

)

((

&(& "

@5 4

9 (

( ? () (( ,"

(( )

(( &

" " "

@ 5

9 F $)

)

+ !

67+ + +

( "

67+ +!

67+ +

( (& F67!)

+ ((

(

+ "'

+ 9

< F $A

& !

< ( 5 4 (

(& :

67+ + &

( *!

)! G =

9###0$14+40+

(1A#A0###1!++.0 A1G"

" )! - -

0#$.1$#!++2%$0 #1

9 &(

) (

& 5 4

) 9 (( ) "

( >

= (

5 4 ) 5 '

(

[11].

Therefore, considering the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 5-:6:! 6#<6&66&%:9!#"$9 96A6&,6>6&% :9!#"5, reported as 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383, in my considered opin$ ion, present petition satisfies the criteria specified under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to invoke its powers for quashing of the FIR to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and present case is duly covered under the following specified conditions in Ch.Bhajan Lal's case (supra), which is reproduced hereunder:$ F1&

(( "

" 4

)(

HF [12].

In view of the discussion held above, petition is allowed. FIR No. 38 dated 01.07.2022, registered under Sections 420 & 120$B IPC at Po$ lice Station Bhadaur, District Barnala (Punjab) and all the subsequent pro$ ceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. [13].

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 6#)9* /

I B C

I B