AMARINDER SINGH GANDHI Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint filed by the father-in-law of petitioner No. 1.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved and seek quashment of the complaint as well as the summoning order. They had taken a plea that the wife had received Rs.40.00 lacs and a consent decree was passed and all the matters including property were settled and the complaint filed by the father-in-law of petitioner No. 1 was an abuse of the process of the Court and material facts had been hidden by the complainant as also by her daughter. It was pleaded that petitioner No. 2 was a retired Lecturer and petitioner No. 3 was a retired Primary School Teacher in the age group of 81-75 respectively and they along with petitioner No. 1 were residents of Australia and had wrongly been summoned.

(3.) Initiating the submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petitioners had been dragged in unnecessary litigation and the complainant had concealed material facts from the Court that there was a mutual divorce and a year later the alimony issue was settled and a sum of Rs.40.00 lacs was paid to settle all issues. It was urged that this fact was not mentioned in the complaint and this fact was also withheld by Kanwaljit Kaur Gandhi when she stepped into the witness box. The counsel referred to the various annexures filed along with the petition and had urged that all the petitioners are Australian citizens and they were not residing in India and the Magistrate failed to call for the report of the police and had it done so, the complaint which was earlier given by the complainant and its fate would have been before the Court. It was urged that the wife had made the same allegations in her affidavit (Annexure P-10) and those were dismissed. It was urged that the complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive and it is a fit case which should be quashed and the Court will not be justified in embarking upon any inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint. It was urged that the respondents in their reply have submitted that the decree obtained from the Australian Court is not a valid decree and referred to para 2 of the reply.