Gurpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-39736-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (126) CRM-M-39736-2025 Date of Decision:-July 28, 2025 Gurpreet Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

Present:

Mr. Anil Kumar Sephia, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of impugned order dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nakodar, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in FIR No. 0056 dated 17.04.2016 under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar Rural as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not been complied with and he was a resident of Gujarat which is evident from the statement of Mohan Singh (Sarpanch) recorded in the year 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the Aadhar Card of the petitioner in which he is stated to be a resident of C-28, Yoginagar, Kamla (Part), PO: Dabhan, District Kheda, Gujarat.

CRM-M-39736-2025 2 3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 4.

A perusal of the FIR demonstrates that the petitioner was married to one Amandeep Kaur on 16.01.2011. Immediately after marriage, the petitioner and her mother started demanding dowry and physically assaulted the complainant and ousted her from the matrimonial house. By virtue of certain panchayats, the complainant again started living in her matrimonial house and out of the wedlock, the petitioner and complainant were blessed with a son on 16.08.2012. It is a specific case of the complainant that in the Shagun ceremony, the petitioner was given a gold bracelet, a pulsar motor-cycle and many other items and huge expenses were incurred on the wedding.

4.1 Finally, on 29.09.2019 under influence of alcohol, the petitioner shunted out the complainant along with the child again from matrimonial house and thereafter, the petitioner has never bothered about them and for the last almost 06 years, not even tried to find out as to what is the status of his child. The petitioner was proceeded as proclaimed person and the only reason why today petitioner has approached the Court is that his property at Jalandhar is being sought to be attached. The mother-in-law of the complainant is a permanent resident of Chicago, USA and hence, it is only greed for that property, the petitioner has approached this Court and still has no concern with his wife and the child. Apparently, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5.

In light of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The respondentAuthorities are directed to take appropriate steps without any delay in

CRM-M-39736-2025 3 accordance with law, however, in case, the petitioner himself surrenders before the trial Court, the Court shall proceed accordingly. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE July 28, 2025 Parul Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No