DAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of Davinder Singh (petitioner No. 1) son of Avtar Singh (petitioner No. 2) was solemnized with complainant (respondent No. 2) Paramjit Kaur daughter of Jagjit Singh on 23.9.1996, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Amritsar. After the solemnization of the marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband and wife and a female child was born out of their wedlock on 27.3.1998. According to the petitioners that immediately after one month of the marriage, the complainant started putting undue pressure on petitioner No. 1, either to have a separate residence from his parents or to live as a Ghar Jawai in her parental house. Petitioner No. 1 (husband) showed his inability to live separately from his parents on the ground that neither he was having any his own business nor a separate house to live. The husband and wife resided together till 1999. Ultimately, some dispute between the parties erupted and they parted their ways.

(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner-husband filed a divorce petition against the complainant-wife on 23.9.1999 for dissolution of their marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") on the ground of cruelty. It was claimed that as a counter-blast to the divorce petition, the complainant-respondent No. 2 lodged the present FIR, bearing No. 45 dated 22.2.2000 (Annexure P1) against Davinder Singh petitioner No. 1 (husband), Avtar Singh and Upkar Kaur-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (parents-in-law), Harpreet Singh petitioner No. 4 (brother-in-law) and Harpreet Kaur (since discharged) wife of Harpreet Singh (petitioner No. 4), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, in which, they were accordingly charge-sheeted, by way of order dated 18.1.2001 (Annexure P2).

(3.) Aggrieved by the registration of a criminal case, the petitioners preferred the present petition, challenging the impugned FIR (Annexure P1), the order (Annexure P2) framing charges against them and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C., inter alia on the ground that the lodging of FIR by the complainant is a counterblast to the divorce petition filed by petitioner No. 1, they have been falsely implicated. In fact, the complainant-wife has treated them with cruelty and decree of divorce was passed in his (husband) favour, through the medium of judgment dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure P4). On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1), order (Annexure P2) framing the charges against them and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner indicated hereinbefore.