KANWAL NAIN SINGH MALIK Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MS . Jagdeep Walia was married to Varinderpal Singh Malik son of Shri Kanwal Nain Singh Malik at Chandigarh on 15th March, 1991. The marriage was registered in the office of Registrar, Chandigarh vide register No. 7200 on 18th March, 1991. According to Jagdeep Walia, she and her husband belong to affluent families. Very valuable and expensive dowry articles were given by the parents of Jagdeep Walia in marriage which constituted her stridhan. After the marriage the possession of jewellery and other articles which had been given by her parents and near relatives was given to her husband, father-in-law Kanwal Nain Singh Malik and mother-in-law Smt. Swaran Kaur. They were required to keep jewellery and other articles as trustees of her stridhan. They refused to hand over Stridhan to her when they were requested to do so. They mis-appropriated her Stridhan which had been given to them as 'trustees' and which was of the value of lacs of rupees. According to Jagdeep Walia not only that they mis-appropriated her Stridhan they also subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. She was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for not fulfilling the unjust demands of her husband and in-laws. On these allegations, Jagdeep Walia lodged FIR No. 43 dated 4.3.1994 at Police Station Central, Chandigarh under sections 406/498-A IPC against Kanwal Nain Singh Malik and his wife Smt. Swaran Kaur.

(2.) THROUGH this criminal misc. petition No. 15931-M of 1996 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Kanwal Nain Singh Malik and his wife Swaran Kaur seek the quashing of FIR No. 43 dated 4.8.1994 registered at Police Station Central, UT Chandigarh under Sections 406/498-A IPC against them. It is averred by them that just after one week of marriage, Jagdeep Walia left for USA. She returned in the month of February, 1992 and again a month thereafter left for U.S.A. alongwith her husband Varinderpal Singh Malik. Since then they have been continuously living in U.S.A. Some time in the year, 1994 she came to India and lodged FIR against them. When they came to know about the registeration of FIR against them under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at the instance of Jagdeep Walia they were taken by surprise as they were not aware of any rancour or any problem between them. Since she was residing with her husband in U.S.A. and they had not heard of anything untoward between them, they felt they were leading a happy married life. She threatened them on phone that she would get them arrested as she had influence with the then Director General of Police Sh. I.P.S. Gill. A number of threats were received by them from the Chandigarh Police and therefore they felt that she was in a position to harm them. They informed Varinderpal Singh Malik in U.S.A. regarding threats being received by them. They learnt that Varinderpal Singh Malik had instituted a divorce petition against her in the Superior court of New Jersey, Chancery Division-Family Part Hudson County, which was decreed on 17.4.1996 vide judgment Annexure P-1. A persual of judgment Annexure P-1 would reveal that every dispute regarding distribution of marital assets was settled between them at the time of divorce. Apart from that Sh. Varinderpal Singh Malik paid Rs. 6000 U.S. Dollars to Jagdeep Walia. It was also mentioned in Judgment Annexure P-1 that no criminal or civil action against Varinderpal Singh Malik would be competent in India and if any action was initiated against him by Jagdeep Walia, she would get the same dismissed. It is averred that in the face of what had taken place between Jagdeep Walia and Varinderpal Singh Malik everything stood settled, in the wake of the dissolution of their marriage by divorce by the New Jersey Court and no dispute survived between them respecting dowry etc. The alleged cruelty if any took place in USA and therefore, the Courts in India do not have jurisdiction.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Varinderpal Singh Malik filed a petition for divorce in New Jersey Court, which was decreed vide judgment Annexure P-1. In judgment Annexure P-1 there is a mention that on March 28, 1996 they settled the distribution of marital assets and it was agreed between them that they shall waive every right, title or claim to alimony as against each other and that Jagdeep Walia shall retain sole right, title and interest in her automobile and Varinderpal Singh waives all claims to that. It was also agreed that Varinderpal Singh Malik shall give to Jagdeep Walia a sum of 6000 US Dollars within four months of the date of divorce and it was further agreed that Jagdeep Walia shall not initiate any action criminal or civil against Varinderpal Singh Malik in India arising out of their marriage and if any action was initiated that she would get dismissed. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of what is recited in the judgment Annexure P-1 dissolving their marriage by a decree of divorce, the registration of FIR was un-warranted and uncalled for. In support of his submission that when Jagdeep Walia had received 6000 US Dollars from Varinderpal Singh Malik and had settled every issue regarding distribution of marital assets and had put their marriage to an end, there was no room so far as the registration of this case is concerned, he drew my attention to Anil Sethi and another v. The State of U.T. Chandigarh and another, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 134 and Yashpal Saini v. State of Haryana, 1995(3) Recent Criminal Reports 534.