HARDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.0023, dtd. 19/6/2019, lodged under Ss. 406 and 498-A IPC registered at Police Station NRI, Police Commissionerate Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising out of the same.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the filing of the instant petition may be noticed as thus. The marriage of petitioner No.3-Varinder Singh was solemnized with respondent No.2-Harpreet Kaur on 21/7/2013 at Ludhiana. At the time of marriage, respondent No.2-wife was already a resident of Canada. After her marriage, respondent No.2-wife left for Canada. Subsequently, petitioner No.3 too joined his wife i.e. respondent No.2 at Canada. However, the marriage between them ran into rough weather as a result thereof, it ended in a divorce in Canada vide Annexure P-5 on 15/11/2018 which came into effect from 16/12/2018. It would be relevant to notice that prior thereto, dtd. 15/11/2018, a settlement (Annexure P-2 on 11/6/2018) was arrived at, between the parties and the terms and conditions, mutually agreed upon, were recorded in the Court order itself. On 19/6/2019, FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against petitioner No.3 as well as his parents i.e. petitioners No.l and 2. In the said FIR, respondent No.2 levelled allegations against the petitioners that at the time of her marriage, a huge dowry which included gold jewellery as well as cash and other household articles etc. were given to her and in turn entrusted to the petitioners but the same was misappropriated by them. Despite her repeated requests to the accused petitioners, they refused to return her dowry articles etc. It was further alleged that though she left for Canada after marriage, however, when she subsequently visited India in March, 2014, as well as in December, 2015, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment for not getting sufficient dowry and in addition, a demand was made by the petitioners for a luxury car, cash etc. Still further, respondent No.2 alleged that it was she who spent more than Rs.10.00 lakhs for sponsoring the visit and Permanent Residency of her husband i.e. petitioner No.3 to Canada in August, 2014. However, once he got his Permanent Residency in Canada, he deserted her and also took along all her jewellery, cash and other valuables. She further alleged that when she last visited India some time in the end of the year 2017, the parents as well as the brother of petitioner No.3 harassed her by extending threats and not allowing her inside their home.

(3.) Vide order dtd. 6/2/2020 passed by this Court, the State as well as respondent No.2 were put on notice and further proceedings in the FIR in question were stayed.