SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 99 dated 14.7.2004 registered under Sections 498- A,406,506,34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P5).

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant was married to accused No.1-Charanjit Singh on 19.11.2000 as per sikh rites. No child was born to them out of the said wedlock. At the time of her marriage, sufficient dowry had been given by her parents . ' 3,00,000/- had been given to the husband and mother-in- law of the complainant towards their travelling expenses for going to Canada. The complainant lived with her husband upto 4.12.2000.

(3.) The complainant was ill-treated by her husband and mother-in-law on account of insufficiency of dowry. Charanjit Singh had moved papers for sponsorship of the complainant but the immigration was declined to the complainant by the Embassy as he could not get married within three months of divorce from his earlier marriage. Harjinder Singh had acted like maternal uncle of Charanjit Singh and had performed all the ceremonies. Harvinder Kaur, daughter of Harjinder Singh was married to Charanjit Singh earlier and they were divorced on 17.11.2000. However, Harvinder Kaur and Harjinder Singh did not disclose the factum of earlier marriage of Charanjit Singh to the complainant. She had now received divorce adjudication from Canada.