PARTAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, three petitions viz. (1) Criminal Misc. No. 37932-M of 2006 preferred by Partap Singh, father-in-law and Kulwant Kaur, mother-in-law (2) Criminal Misc. No. 49931-M of 2006 preferred by Gurnam Singh, brother of the husband and (3) Criminal Misc. No. 59336-M of 2006 filed by Gurdit Singh, elder brother of father-in-law and Tejinder Singh, husband shall be decided together.

(2.) FIR in these cases was lodged by Kulwinder Kaur, who was a citizen of United Kingdom. As per the FIR, she was resident of 7, Scribers Lane, Har Green Birmingham B-280 NY. The marriage of complainant-Kulwinder Kaur was solemnized with Tejinder Singh at Ludhiana on 8th May, 2004. It is not disputed that for solemnizing the marriage, complainant-Kulwinder Kaur came to India only one month before her marriage and thereafter she left for United Kingdom. Thereafter, immigration of her husband-Tejinder Singh was sponsored and he also left for United Kingdom on 24th October, 2004. Counsel for the Petitioners has referred to the divorce proceedings (Annexures P-10 to P-14) between the husband and wife initiated and concluded in the Uxbridge County Court and has stated that all property and entrustment disputes between the parties have been resolved by the Matrimonial County Court while granting divorce. The matter has been investigated by the Ludhiana police. It is stated that the only allegation against the Petitioners is that the dowry articles were entrusted to them in India and during the stay of complainant-Kulwinder Kaur in India, her husband and his relations had misbehaved with the complainant and had demanded a car. It is stated in the report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure (Annexure P-9) that Tejinder Singh reached United Kingdom on 24th October, 2004 and resided there with his father-in-law. On 24th February, 2005, he is stated to have left the house for an unknown place. For search of Tejinder Singh, the complainant-Kulwinder Kaur and her father came to India and a Panchayat was called, where on 17th August, 2005, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and uncle-in-law of the complainant had demanded dowry articles. The police after inquiry, had deleted the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 382, IPC, however they came to a conclusion that offence punishable under Sections 406,498-A and 323, IPC, was made out against the accused.

(3.) This is one of those typical cases, where after the marriage bride and bridegroom have gone abroad. The wife is a citizen of United Kingdom. She had facilitated immigration of her husband, who had married a Non-Resident-Indian wife only for the purposes of his settlement in a foreign country. Having reached abroad, he deserted his wife and had obtained a divorce. The hurt of a Non-Resident-Indian wife that she has been used as a conduit for immigration, can be well understood. In this context, the allegations in the FIR have been examined. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the husband and wife, after obtaining divorce, parted their ways and are residing happily in United Kingdom. The property and entrustment of the articles was a subject matter before the Uxbridge County Court, which has granted divorce. A similar controversy was examined by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2009 7 SCC 712 wherein it was held as under: