PIARA SINGH Vs. GURMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned complaint No. 86 of 2019 dtd. 16/3/2019 titled as 'Gurmeet Singh Vs. Sharandeep Singh and others' under Ss. 406, 498-A of IPC pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, NRI, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dtd. 21/1/2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, NRI, District Jalandhar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Succinctly, the facts are that the marriage of the son of the petitioners and the daughter of the complainant, namely, Navdeep Kaur, was solemnized on 11/7/2014 at Dhami Castle Palace, Jalandhar. The son of the petitioners is a permanent resident of USA and he came from abroad to solemnize the marriage. After the marriage, the petitioners and their son went back to USA and the daughter of the complainant kept on residing at her parental home. The son of the petitioners sponsored the visa of Navdeep Kaur to take her to USA to live with him and accordingly in the year 2015, son of the petitioners, namely, Sharandeep Singh came to India and took Navdeep Kaur to USA and till dated she is residing in USA on the basis of permanent residency. However, after some time, the attitude and behaviour of Navdeep Kaur changed towards the petitioners and her husband. She started harassing the petitioners and their son by levelling false and baseless allegations. Navdeep Kaur was employed in Bilgro Park Mall, USA and from where she started stealing goods. On 27/12/2015, Navdeep Kaur was caught red handed by the security guard of the mall for stealing items from the mall and they handed her over to the police and since it was a criminal act, the police presented the case in the Court of law against Navdeep Kaur and she was sentenced to 06 months of probation and fine of $2600. It is further alleged that daughter of the complainant became violent with the petitioners and she gave beatings to petitioner No.2 in USA. On account of rude behaviour of Navdeep Kaur, they came back to India in April, 2016. While the petitioners were in India, Navdeep Kaur, in order to falsely implicate the petitioners and their son in false case, attempted to commit suicide and her husband got her admitted in the hospital where no toxic or poison was detected in her body. On coming to know about the said illegal act committed by Navdeep Kaur, the petitioners immediately came back to USA to know the entire acts of events. Thereafter, in order to harass the petitioners, Gurmeet Singh-complainant, in collusion with Navdeep Kaur, by concocting a false story by manoeuvring the facts, moved a false complaint against the present petitioners including other family members.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that marriage between the son of the petitioners and daughter of the complainant/respondent took place in the year 2014 and, thereafter, the petitioners went abroad. The daughter of the complainant was found stealing at her work place in which she was sentenced by the Court of competent jurisdiction in USA. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 initiated legal proceedings against the daughter of the complainant in USA and got eviction order. Son of the petitioners and daughter of the complainant got divorced in USA on 18/5/2018 by way of consent decree. Thereafter, first complaint was made by the complainant before the jurisdictional police authorities in India. The veracity of the allegations examined and they were found to be false. It is further contended that at the time of obtaining divorce, daughter of the complainant has not made any allegation and now, after one year of the divorce, the complaint (supra) was filed and petitioners are permanent residents of America and have been residents of their native place of District Kurukshetra and as such, the learned Court below ought to have followed the drill of Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has specifically pleaded the non-compliance of Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. para 12 of page 17 of the paper book and relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in 'Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar and others' 2017 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 405.