Sukhdev Singh Mangat v. State of Punjab and Anr

CRM-M-9089-2015                                              1                                     2024:PHHC:046834 228         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9089-2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.04.2024 Sukhdev Singh Mangat    ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another         ...Respondent CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Angel Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab H  ARPREET SINGH BRAR  J. (ORAL)

¶1The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 7 dated 26.04.2014 registered under Sections 498-A, 420 and 406 of the IPC at Police Station NRI City, Ludhiana.

¶2The marriage between Parjot Singh, son of the petitioner, and respondent no. 2 was solemnised on 20.01.2011. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 went back to Canada and out of the said wedlock, one girl child namely Kirti Kaur Mangat was born on 18.10.2022 in Canada. After starting the process of calling her husband to Canada, respondent no. 2 came back to India in January, 2012 and started living with her in-laws.  The FIR(supra) was registered on the allegations  that  the  petitioner,  father-in-law,  and  the  mother-in-law  started taunting her on dowry. On insistence of husband of respondent no.2, her father gave his car bearing no. PB-31-0059 to them, which her in-laws sold later on. In February, 2012, respondent no. 2 went back to Canada and the petitioner and the mother-in-law kept calling her over phone and asked her what items she had brought in dowry. Parjot Singh reached Canada on 29.01.2013 and subsequently CRM-M-9089-2015                                              2                                     2024:PHHC:046834 got his Permanent Residence card. Thereafter, he started asking respondent no. 2 for a divorce and left the house on 09.09.2013. Respondent no. 2 came back to India on 23.10.2013 and her parents tried to resolve the dipute but no solution could be found.

¶3Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   contends   that  no   specific allegations regarding entrustment of dowry articles to the petitioner have been levied on him. There is no material on record to indicate that the car bearing no. PB-31-0059 was ever entrusted to the petitioner. ASI Dalbir Singh, Inquiry Officer, has also conceded to the fact that the said car was never transferred to the petitioner In fact, the said car was sold by the original owner Sachin Kumar Passi to one Lakhwinder Singh and nothing suggests that the said car was sold by the petitioner by forging of signatures. She further submits that at no point of time respondent no.2 did reside at her in-laws house as she went to Canada soon after her marriage and her husband Parjot Singh joined her company there in January, 2013. In fact, respondent no. 2 herself sponsored the visa of the petitioner for the birthday celebrations of her daughter- Kirti Kaur Mangat.

¶4Having heard the learned counsel of the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it is transpires that the petitioner is the father-in-law of respondent no.2-complainant. It is evident that all the allegations are generic in nature and no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667  quashed the complainant against the sister-in-law of the complainant noting that the sole purpose of filing the complaint was to humiliate her and allowing criminal prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law. Speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari, the following was observed: "34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation.AJAY GOSWAMI I attest to the accuracy and It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions CRM-M-9089-2015                                              3                                     2024:PHHC:046834 of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.

¶35The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law." :. A t4o  udge bench of the ;on<ble Supreme (ourt in  G)1'2"1 /2"+3"1 T"4'$ 5, /#"#$ %& M"2"1"*2#1" (2002! 5 /CC 166, speaking through ustice =mesh (. 8anerjee, opined as follo4s: "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..." .. A three  udge bench of the ;on<ble Supreme (ourt in Abhishek v. State of  adh!a Pradesh 202"(#) $.C.$.(Cri%ina&) 2"' )uashed the *+R under Section &0'1A of the +P( against the mother1in1la4 and brother1in1la4 of the complainant and observed that the allegations are mostl2 general and omnibus in nature 4ithout an2 specific details as to ho4 and 4hen her brother1in1la4 and mother1in1la4 4ho lived in different cities altogether subjected her to harassment for do4r2. Such allegations are found to be incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Speaking through  ustice Sanja2 Kumar, the scope of Section &'! (r.P.(. )ua )uashing of *+R stemming from offence under Section &0'1A 4as 2024.04.05 19:01also deliberated upon and the follo4ing observations 4ere made: CRM-M-9089-2015                                              4                                     2024:PHHC:046834 "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

¶15Earlier, 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.

¶16Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali and others v. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from AJAY GOSWAMI the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, CRM-M-9089-2015                                              5                                     2024:PHHC:046834 with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines."

¶7Time and again, the Courts have highlighted the tendency of roping in all and sundry members of the husband's family in cases filed under Section 498-A of the IPC. Recently, a two Judge bench the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi and others v. State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No. 494/2023 decided on 30.11.2023 quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband's sisters and cousins and observed that if the allegations are not serious and substantiated, and there is no clear evidence of accused's   involvement   in   the   complainant's   marital   life,   they   cannot   be implicated under Section 498-A of the IPC.

¶8It appears that the petitioner was staying in Khanna, Punjab while respondent no. 2 had been staying in Canada along with her husband. Nothing available on the record has assisted in establishing involvement of the petitioner in the marital life of respondent no.2. The vague and omnibus allegations levelled against the petitioner seem to be motivated by mere private spite and vendetta.

¶9Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 7 dated 26.04.2014 registered under Sections 498-A, 420 and 406 of the IPC at Police Station NRI City, Ludhiana is hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

¶10Pending   miscellaneous   application(s),   if   any,   shall   also   stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

02.04.2024 Ajay Goswami