- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 13.12.2007 passed by a learned single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-40020 of 2007 dismissing an application praying for quashing FIR No. 141 dated 30.5.2006 under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code")
(3.) The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellant No. 1 is the husband of the respondent No. 3. The other appellants are his parents. Respondent No. 3 was married with one Ravinder Singh Jaspal in Canada in the year 1995. A son was born out of the said wedlock on or about 25.8.1996. As disputes and differences arose between them, respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit for grant of divorce on or about 30.9.1998. In the said proceedings, a decree for divorce was granted by a Canadian court on or about 22.4.2000. Almost immediately thereafter, that is, on 21.5.2000, respondent No. 3 and appellant No. 1 got married at Jalandhar as per Sikh rites. After a month s stay in India, respondent No. 3 left for Canada. On or about 6.3.2001, respondent No. 3 gave birth to a female child in Canada. Appellant No. 1 went to Canada on the sponsorship of respondent No. 3 on 14.4.2001. He got an employment there as a driver. Disputes and differences arose between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent No. 3 in the year 2003. Allegedly, she left with all her belongings and withdrew Canadian $ 24500 from the joint account of the parties. It is neither denied nor disputed that she had been contacting lawyers with regard to her matrimonial disputes and even cancelled the sponsorship of the application for grant of permanent residence of appellant No. 1 as also his family. In those circumstances, Appellant No. 1 initiated a divorce proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, inter alia, stating: On 28th August, 2003, when the applicant had gone to work, the respondent left the matrimonial home to live with her parents. She took with her all her personal effects, jewelleries and withdrew $23,000.00 from their joint bank account. The respondent is threatening to hurt herself and get the applicant involved with the police to deport him from Canada. The applicant is afraid and believes, that if she is allowed to come back to his home, she may hurt herself or may hurt the applicant. The respondent wants the applicant to be deported and may do anything to cause physical violence. Inderpal Singh is the father of the respondent, Paramjit Kaur and the father in law of the applicant. Surinder Singh is the brother of the respondent, Paramjit Kaur and the brother-in-law of the applicant. However, differences between them were sorted out and respondent No. 3 affirmed an affidavit on or about 30.9.2003 admitting her mistake, stating: On September 20, 2003, I decided to return to the house of my husband without advising him that I was coming back. My husband is reluctant and fearful to have me back in the house. I have promised my husband that I would not harass him any more and that I am very sorry for all the problems that I have created for him. I am making this affidavit to satisfy the concerns and fear of my husband, HARMANPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA with respect to my motive of returning to his house. Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia fears that I have voluntarily returned to him cause more damage and problems for him. I have, however, returned to my husband because I have realized that I had made a big mistake by taking the steps mentioned above and I am truly remorseful for my actions. On or about 5.2.2006, parents of appellant No. 1 visited Canada as appellant No. 2 developed a heart problem. Disputes and differences again arose between the parties in the year 2006 as a result whereof they started living separately with effect from 29.3.2006. It is only thereafter, the father of the respondent No. 3, namely Inter Pal Singh, a retired Police Inspector and permanent resident of Canada, while on a trip to India, lodged a complaint against the appellants under Section 406/420 IPC on or about 21.4.2006 along with an affidavit of respondent No. 3 inter alia alleging that the appellants demanded dowry and misappropriated the dowry articles. It was furthermore alleged: 11. That the marriage of Harmanpreet Singh was conducted with my daughter with preplanned ulterior and malafide motive in order to deceive and misappropriate and misuse the dowry articles which were entrusted to the accused as mentioned above and had got pre-planned, ulterior and malafide motive. At the time of living home, the aforesaid Harmanpreet Singh also withdrawn the amount from the bank from the joint account. In view of separation between appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 3, appellant filed a second divorce petition on or about 1.5.2006 in the Superior Court of Brampton, Ontario seeking divorce and custody of the child. Indisputably, an FIR bearing No. 141 dated 30.5.2006 was registered under Section 406/420 IPC at Division No. 4, Jalandhar. The Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar made an enquiry with regard to the aforementioned matter. He submitted a report on or about 30.3.2007, the concluding portion whereof reads as under: From the investigation conducted till now, I have reached to this conclusion that although the marriage of Paramjit Kaur daughter of Inderpal Singh and Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia son of Sh. Harbhajan Singh had been solemnized at Hotel Raj Mahal, Jalandhar, but the misunderstanding/ altercation between them had been developed after their reaching in Canada. This fact has also been proved/clarified here that during the period from the year 2000 upto the year 2005, both of them (husband-wife) had been living amicably but later on again misunderstanding developed between them due to calling of his parents by Harmanpreet Singh to Canada. But the allegations leveled by the plaintiff in the suit/case are baseless and devoid of facts which has not been proved and neither there are solid proof available in this regard. He made recommendations for cancellation of the said suit/case, stating: From the enquiry till now made into the case registered under FIR No. 141 dated 30.5.2006 under Section 406/420 IPC at P.S. Division No. 4, Jalandhar, the allegations leveled by the plaintiff have not been proved and neither the offence has been found to be done. If approved, then S.H.O. P.S. Division No. 4 Jalandhar may be advised to submit the cancellation report of this suit case.;