JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REPLY filed. Petitioner-Jalwinder Singh has put in appearance before the Illaqa Magistrate, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court on 28.11.2008 and has been released on bail as directed. He seeks quashing of FIR No. 23, dated 20.1.2006, under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot. As per the allegations in the FIR, which was registered by Harinder Pal Singh, Mandeep Kaur, his sister was married to the petitioner, who is residing in Canada., At the time of marriage, dowry articles had been given by spending about 5 lac of Rupees. It is alleged that demand of car in dowry was made. Petitioner had started harassing complainant's sister in Canada and she used to tell the same to the complainant on telephone. In February 2004, Mandeep Kaur gave Birth to a child and on this father of the complainant had made the expenses as per rituals. Thereafter, petitioner started harassing Mandeep Kaur in Canada and made a demand of 15,000 dollars from the father of the complainant. On 19.1.2006, when complainant and his wife Manjeet Kaur were present in the house, petitioner allegedly went to their house and said that the complainant had not given a car in the marriage and that he would perform another marriage in India and would teach a lesson to the complainant.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that bare reading of FIR indicates that no offence is made out against the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that cancellation report has been submitted by the police. A copy of the cancellation report has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. It has also been argued that petitioner and his wife Mandeep Kaur i.e. Complainant's sister have already got a divorce in Canada by Provincial Court of British Columbia. Wife of the petitioner had made a statement of claim before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of British Columbia. In that petition no allegations of cruelty or demand of dowry were raised.

(3.) BARE perusal of the FIR indicates that not even a single event is mentioned in the FIR regarding petitioner having treated, his wife with cruelty in India. There are vague allegations of demand of dowry. It is also apparent that no statement of the wife of the petitioner has been record. It is not understood as to how a fresh inquiry had been taken subsequently without there being any order under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Even if the allegations in the FIR reported to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Even material collected during investigation does not include statement of Mandeep Kaur.