- (1.) Vide this judgment, the above mentioned four petitions, would be disposed of filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the Complaint No. 53 dated 28.7.2004 under Sections 420, 495,493,498-A, 376, 406,109 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) titled as " Kamaljit Kaur vs. Charanjit Singh etc." and the summoning order dated 2.4.2005 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Phagwara under Sections 376, 420,495,498-A,109 IPC (Annexure P2) and subsequent orders passed in pursuance thereto.
(2.) The Contents of the complaint (Annexure P1) read as under:- "1. That the complainant has become a victim of one of those marriage scam cases in which young peoples come from abroad to India and without disclosing their marital status and in connivance with their kith and kins marry Indian girls, enjoy few weeks on in-laws expenses, play with lives as such innocent girls and go back by making false promises and thus ruins the lives of these girls. 2. That all the accused are related intese. Harjinder Singh is the maternal uncle of Charanjit Singh accused, Gurmeet Kaur is the wife of Harjinder Singh. Harwinder Kaur and Sukhwinder Kaur are the daughters of Harjinder Singh. Gurmail Singh is the husband of Sukhwinder Kaur. Savdeep Kaur is the sister of Charanjit Singh. Rajinder Singh is the husband of Savdeep Kaur, Surinder Singh is the paternal uncle of Charanjit Singh. Narinder Kaur mother of Charanjit Singh is not named as accused since she has expired. Accused Harjidner Singh is looking after his own family matters and also the family matters of Charanjit Singh since the death of father of Charanjit Singh, who died in1984. 3. That on 19.11.2000 the complainant was married with Charanjit Singh accused according to Sikh Religious rites. The marriage ceremony was performed at Phagwara and later on the marriage was registered on 11.12.2000 at the office of Registrar of Marriage, Phagwara. That all the above mentioned accused were present and they actively participated in the marriage. The parents of the complainant performed this marriage by spending huge amount gave dowry and the same was entrusted to the accused for the use of the complainant. The total amount spent on the marriage by the parents of the complainant amounted to Rs.15 lacs. 4. That after the marriage the complainant and Charanjit Singh lived together as husband and wife from 19.11.2000 to 14.12.2000 at Satnapura, Phagwara and cohabited with each. During this period, accused Harjinder Singh, Gurmeet Kaur, Harwinder Kaur, Sukhwinder Kaur and Gurmail Singh were regular visitors to House No. 61-B, Satnapura, Phagwara Savdeep Kaur and Rajinder Singh were also residing in thesaid house during this period. 5. That all the above mentioned accused started harassing the complainant for having brought insufficient dowry and compelled her to bring more dowry in the form of cash and on her refusal, they torturing her mentally and physically, Charanjit Singh left for Canada on 14.12.2000. 6. That Charanjit Singh is permanently residing in Canada for last few year and before this marriage he was married to one Sukhwinder Kaur from whom he had got divorce in Canda. 7. That Charanjit Singh again visited India and during this visit, the complainant was shocked when Charanjit Singh told her that between his first divorce and our marriage he was also married to Harvinder Kaur, daughter of his real maternal Uncle Harjinder Singh. The complainant asked him as to why he has cheated the complainant by not disclosing this fact on which Charanjit Singh confessed that he his co-accused have committed a blunder by concealing this fact and now they be pardoned. 8.That the consent of the complainant of her marriage with Charanjit Singh has been obtained by committed fraud with her by all the accused by concealing the factum of marriage of Charanjit Singh with Harwinder Kaur. The complainant would not have given her consent to this marriage had she been informed about the factum of previous marriage of Charanjit Singh with his own cousin sister (daughter of maternal uncle) Harwinder Kaur. 9. That before the marriage ceremony of the complainant with Charanjit Singh, Harjinder Singh, Gurmeet Kaur, Harwinder Kaur, Sukhwinder Kaur, Gurmail Singh alongwith Savdeep Kaur and Rajinder Singh alongwith middle man came to the house of the complainant on 12.11.2000 at the village Nangal Majja to have a look at the complainant. The family members of the complainant along with respectables of the village were also present. The father of the complainant specifically asked the accused whether Charanjit Singh had contracted any other matrimonial alliance after he got divorce from Sukhwinder Kaur, to which all the accused stated that after the divorce of Sukhwinder Kaur Charanjit Singh has not married again nor he has been engaged so far. The complainant and Charanjit Singh had also separate talk in a separate room where the complainant also enquired from Charanjit Singh about his martial status on which he told her that he has not been engaged or married to any other girl after his divorce from Sukhwinder Kaur. After getting this assurance from the accused the complainant and her parents agreed for the marriage of the complainant with Charanjit Singh. 10. That on 15.11.2000, the father of the complainant alongwith other relatives went to House No. 61-B Satnapura, Phagwara,with fruits, Gold ornaments including Karan, Golden Chain for Charanjit Singh and one Gold Kara to Harjinder Singh. All the above mentioned accused were present at the Thaka ceremony where again they were specifically asked to assure that Charanjit Singh has not contracted any other marriage except his marriage with Sukhwinder Kaur from whom he had got divorce. All the accused again assured the father of the complainant and other relatives that Charanjit Singh has not contracted any other marriage except his above mentioned marriage with Sukhwinder Kaur. Relying onthese assurance of the accused the complainant was married with Charanjit Singh on 19.11.2000. 11. That all the accused suppressed the factum of marriage of Charanjit Singh with Harwinder Kaur (daughter of his maternal uncle) which took place after Charanjit Singh got divorce from Sukhwinder Kaur and before the marriage with the complainant and as such the accused have committed the offence of cheating. 12. That due to the fraud committed by the accused, the complainant co-habited with Charanjit Singh as husband and wife of Phagwara and this fact, of co-habitation was in the knowledge of all the accused because they had been visiting at house No. 61-B Satnapura, Phagwara daily and such they are all responsible for ruining the life of the complainant and have thus committed offence falling under Section 376-109 IPC. 13. That the consent given by the complainant to this mariage and her consent to cohabitation with Charanjit Singh as husband and wife was no consent in the eyes of law as the same was obtained by fraud by concealing the factum of marriage between Charanjit Singh and Harwinder Kaur (Daughter of maternal uncle of Charanjit Singh). 14. That had the complainant knew that Charanjit Singh and Harjinder Singh are such type of persons that Harjidner Singh would marry his daughter to son of his real sister Charanjit Singh, she would not under any circumstances had given her consent to such marriage. 15. That all the accused by concealing the factum of marriage of Charanjit Singh with Harwinder Kaur have committed the offences falling under Sections 493 and 495 IPC alongwith other offence falling under Section 498-A/105 IPC because they treated the complainant with cruelty on account of insufficient dowry and misappropriating her dowry articles. 16. That on 21.7.2004, Harjinder Singh and his co-accused Gurmail Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur had confessed before him that they alongwith other accused have committed blunder by not disclosing the factum of marriage of Charanjit Singh with his one daughter Harwinder Kaur and further asked him to persuade the complainant and her parents not to pursue the matter against them and that they are ready to compensate the complainant as the police is after Harjinder Singh to arrest him and other accused. 17. That the complainant reported the matter to the police but the accused party are very influential and as such police has registered the case only under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC although the contents of FIR makes out a clear cut case falling under Sections 376, 495,493,420 IOC the police has so far not taken any action against the accused. Hence this complaint."
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the these petitions deserve to be allowed. It has been held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- "The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482,Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.";