Raj Kumar and anr. Vs. the State of Punjab and anr.

Raj Kumar and anr. vs The State of Punjab and anr.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Mar 21, 2007

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/615404

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/615404
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Decided On: Mar 21, 2007
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raj Kumar and anr.

Respondent

The State of Punjab and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Court. In Rajinder Mohan Kashyap v. Om Parkash Sharma
Reported In: (2007)146PLR470

Excerpt

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - as..........no. 1 to 3 are residing in england. it is stated that as far as the petitioners are concerned, they have nothing to do with the matrimonial affairs of the husband and wife, as they are living in england after the marriage since 2000. in these facts, a prayer for quashing of the f.i.r. has been made being abuse of the process of the court.4. i have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the f.i.r. as well as the reply filed by respondent no. 1.5. during the pendency of the petition, petitioner no. 1 raj kumar in crl. misc. no. 40292-m of 2003 has died and his wife sudarshan bali (petitioner no. 2) was found innocent during the police investigation and was kept in column no. 2. no reply has been filed by the complainant. counsel for tne complainant, who is present in the court, could not controvert the factum of mutual divorce granted to the husband and wife by brentford country court, brentford. he also could not controvert the alleged compromise between the parties before the brentford county court, brentford, a copy of which has also been placed on record by the counsel for the petitioners. it has also not been controverted that accused no. 1 to 3 are residing in england. in the f.i.r., the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment are alleged to have been made against accused no. 1 to 3. as far as the petitioners are concerned, it has been alleged that they were the middlemen at the time of the marriage and had also actively participated in the marriage. though it has been alleged that the dowry articles were handed over to all the accused, but it has not been specifically alleged which articles were handed over to whom and at what time. the allegations in this regard are totally vague. undisputedly, the petitioners are remotely related to the husband and their false implication in this case cannot be ruled out as generally the remote relations are falsely implicated in matrimonial disputes. it is also not disputed that soon.....

Full Judgment

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of three Crl. Misc. petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Crl. Misc. No. 40292-M of 2003 has been filed by petitioners Raj Kumar and his wife Sud-harshan Bali, Crl. Misc. No. 480-M of 2004 has been filed by petitioners Kishore Chhibber and his wife Smt. Romi Chhibber and Crl. Misc. No. 7057-M of 2004 has been filed by petitioner Dolly Datta. These petitions have been filed for quashing F.I.R. No. 60 dated 13.4.2003 registered under Sections 406/498A/506/420/34 I.P.C. at Police Station City, Phagwara, District Kapurthala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered on the complaint made by Ravi Sharan Mehta, father of Ramita against the husband of Ramita, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and the petitioners. The petitioners Raj Kumar and his wife Sudharshan Bali are the Massar and Massi, whereas Kishore Chhibber and his wife Romi Chhibber are the uncle and Aunti of Nitin Chhibber. Petitioner Dolly Datta is the unmarried cousin sister of the husband. In the F.I.R., the allegations of harassment and demand of dowry have been levelled against the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (accused Nos. 1 to 3). Against the petitioners, who are the distant relatives of the husband, it has been alleged that they were the middlemen in the marriage and had actively participated in the same. It has also been alleged that the dowry articles were given to all the accused at the time of marriage which were subsequently not returned to the wife. It has been further alleged that accused No. 1 to 3 demanded the dowry through the petitioners.

3. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging therein that they have nothing do with the alleged demand of dowry and the alleged harassment caused by the husband and his family members to the daughter of the complainant. It has been alleged that soon after the marriage the daughter of the complainant left for U.K. along with her husband and started living there. She is still living there. The husband and his family members are also residing there. It is alleged that in the year 2003, a divorce decree was passed between the husband and wife. They have settled their disputes on the basis of a compromise and now they are living separately in England. A copy of the decree of divorce passed by the Brentford Country Court, Brentford has been placed on record. It is stated that all the allegations levelled by the father of the wife against the petitioners are totally false and concocted and have been levelled with motivation because accused No. 1 to 3 are residing in England. It is stated that as far as the petitioners are concerned, they have nothing to do with the matrimonial affairs of the husband and wife, as they are living in England after the marriage since 2000. In these facts, a prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. has been made being abuse of the process of the Court.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the reply filed by respondent No. 1.

5. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner No. 1 Raj Kumar in Crl. Misc. No. 40292-M of 2003 has died and his wife Sudarshan Bali (petitioner No. 2) was found innocent during the police investigation and was kept in column No. 2. No reply has been filed by the complainant. Counsel for tne complainant, who is present in the court, could not controvert the factum of mutual divorce granted to the husband and wife by Brentford Country Court, Brentford. He also could not controvert the alleged compromise between the parties before the Brentford County Court, Brentford, a copy of which has also been placed on record by the counsel for the petitioners. It has also not been controverted that accused No. 1 to 3 are residing in England. In the F.I.R., the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment are alleged to have been made against accused No. 1 to 3. As far as the petitioners are concerned, it has been alleged that they were the middlemen at the time of the marriage and had also actively participated in the marriage. Though it has been alleged that the dowry articles were handed over to all the accused, but it has not been specifically alleged which articles were handed over to whom and at what time. The allegations in this regard are totally vague. Undisputedly, the petitioners are remotely related to the husband and their false implication in this case cannot be ruled out as generally the remote relations are falsely implicated in matrimonial disputes. It is also not disputed that soon after the marriage, the daughter of the complainant along with her husband and his family members went to U.K. and they are still living there. In view of these facts, in my opinion, the continuation of the aforesaid case against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the Court. In Rajinder Mohan Kashyap v. Om Parkash Sharma 2005(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 274, it has been held by this Court that it has become a tendency in the matrimonial disputes to implicate all the family members, even some times the remote relations, on the vague allegations. In similar circumstances, the F.I.R. was quashed in the said case.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, these petitions are allowed and F.I.R. No. 60 dated 13.4.2003 registered under Sections 406/498A/506/420/34 I.P.C. at Police Station City, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2007 Same Parties Raj Kumar and anr. vs The State of Punjab and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

Criminal