LAWS(P&H)-1983-8-62

DARSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On August 03, 1983
DARSHAN KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitions (Crl. Misc. 3091/M and 3371/M of 1983 have been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code), for quashing the First Information report No. 93 registered at Police Station Ferozepore on 30.4.1983, at the instance of Smt. Kiran Bala. This order will dispose of both the petitions.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations made in the First Information Report it appears that Smt. Kiran Bala lodged this report against the petitioners and others under Sections 420, 109 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. It is alleged therein that she had appeared in her. M.A. Final Examination in the month of April, 1982 and her parents were in search of a suitable match for her when Smt. Sheela Wanti and her son Darshan Kumar came forward with a proposal for lending her hand to Anil Kumar who was a doctor by profession and was employed in Iran. Anil Kumar the grand-son of smt. Sheela Wanti. After initial suggestion having been made at Ludhiana at the house of Sat Pal, brother of Narinder Mohan, it was represented by all the accused-petitioners on 23.4.1982 at Ferozepor that Dr. Anil Kumar was a bachelor and willing to marry with Kiran Bala and that during the negotiations, the petitioners entered into a conspiracy and they asked for consideration of marrige with Anil Kumar in the shape of cash, ornaments, clothes and entertainment expenses. It is said that the father of Kiran Bala fell pray to the inducement of the petitioners and accepted the proposal and on that day, as a part of consideration, he gave one pound, one silver thal and Rs. 1100/- in cash in the performance of a ceremony called as Roka. At that time, it was suggested on behalf of the petitioners that soon after the marriage, which was fixed for 24.5.1982, the couple would be leaving for Iran and a passport for Kiran Bala might be arranged. Dr. Anil Kumar accused represented to the father of Kiran bala that the passport had to be obtained by Kiran Bala as the wife of Anil Kumar and only then visa could be obtained by Kiran Bala for entry into Iran. The marriage ceremony was, however, performed according to Vedic rites at Ferozepor on 24.5.1982. After Saptpadi had been performed, jewellery consisting of 20 gold bangles (20 tolas), 3 karas gold (5 tolas) 5 gold sets (7/8 tolas each), 2 diamond tops 2 writ watches etc. besides cash worth Rs. 10 lacs were entrusted to Sardari Lal and Anil Kumar accused while the other accused joined hands in receiving the aforesaid cash, ornaments and other articles as consideration for the marrige. Dr. Anil Kumar took the complainant to Hydrabad and Sri Lanka for honeymooning. From Sri Lanka the couple returned to Bangalore on 15.6.1982 and on the following day Dr. Anil Kumar quietly left for Iran having deprived the complainant of all cash, jewellery and other articles as stated above. On 5.4.1983, the complainant's father went to Bangalore accompanied by bother relatives and friends to persuade the accused for the rehabilitation of the complainant but when the complainant party met the colleagues of the accused at Bangalore, it transpired that Dr. Anil Kumar was already married with an iranian girl. The fact of Dr. Anil Kumar's marriage with an Iranian girl was further got confirmed from the Iranian Embassy. The case of the complainant party is that the whole transaction detailed above revealed that from the very beginning, the intention of the accused-party, in conspiracy with each other, was to grab money and property and they induced the complainant's parents to part with the aforesaid property on the false representation that the complainant would be taken as wife of Dr. Anil Kumar but the intention of the accused was to cause loss and wrongful gain to themselves by false inducement which attracted the application of Section 420, Indian Penal Code. On the basis of these allegations, the case was registered against the accused under Sections 420, 109 and 120-B. Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IN Vinod Kumar Seth's case (supra) it was held :-