Jagmohan Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another
!"# $% &#'()($*
+ + !,-$.!* /(*,.
+++ #"("($*#0 12/ /"!"# $%
3*4!5 !*& !*$".#0 +++#)6$*&#*")
78 + / /
!
" # /
+
8 $
% &'# ( (
) * + ," -. #.
$# #-$' &.'/ ( ", *
#
0 1
! #/
1 !
$# -2 #-$$ ) !
1
3 #-$$ % 1 #-$&
1 ! ! !
%
! !!
!
1
#-$4 1 1 3
# ,
! !
!
%1 1
1 ,
5------6/
%
1 # 1!
7 offence under Section 498-A is not made out against the petitioner. Further, the alleged offence has taken place in Australia and the FIR (supra) deserves to be quashed on the account of lack of territorial jurisdiction. In fact, no complaint has been filed by Mandeep Kaur Gill in Australia. The petitioner was working in Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, Punjab as an Assistant Manager and only moved to Australia on insistence of Mandeep Kaur Gill. The petitioner did not even possess a passport at that point. The daughter of respondent no. 2 was interested in maintaining any relations with the parents of the petitioner only to the extent of getting a share in the property of his late uncle Baldev Singh Brar. Moreover, the petitioner was kicked out of the house by Mandeep Kaur Gill as he did not bring his share from his parents and was only welcomed back when he started earning well. 4.
Mr. Impinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 and files his power of attorney. Same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that offence punishable under Section 498-A is made out against the petitioner.
alleged offence has entirely taken place in Australia. The present case is squarely covered by the
ratio of law laid down by a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab and others (2009) 7 SCC 712 wherein it was held that when the larger part of the alleged offence has occurred abroad, allowing criminal proceedings to continue in India would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
6.
Furthermore, a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girdhar Shankar Tawde v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177, speaking through Justice Umesh C. Banerjee, opined as follows: "18... In any event the wilful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under section 498-A and not de hors the same. To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the matter of a charge under section 498-A. The legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to Explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of Explanation (b). The letters by themselves though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not, however, bring home the charge of section 498-A against the accused.
Acquittal of a charge under section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained..."
7.
In the facts and circumstance of the present case, present petition is allowed and this Court does not find any reason allow criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioner as the entirety of alleged offence has taken place in Australia. As such, in view of the ratio of law laid down in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia (supra), FIR No. -. #.
$# #-$'
&.'/ ( ",
*
1* *
'
9: 1
/ 60(:
;
9:
; ) 6 <6" 9:
;
<6"