LexHARMANPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 563 + HARMANPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA & ORS. A V. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS Criminal Appeal No. 908 of 2009 MAY 5, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ... Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - FIR - Quashing of - FIR against husband and his parents u/s.4061 420 /PC alleging dowry demand and misappropriation of dowry articles -Application uls 482 Cr.PC. - Dismissal of, by High c Court - Held: Not correct - Parties were living in Canada - FIR was lodged in Jalandhar and offence, if any, was committed in Canada - Alleged demand was made after period of five years from marriage - Offence for criminal breach of trust and/or cheating not made out -Allegation in FIR have D ,. been made with an ulterior motive to harass the applicants - . C.ontinuance of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court - Thus, order of High Court set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 4061420. The question which arose or consideration was E whether High Court was justified in dismissing an application praying for quashing FIR u/s. 406/420 IPC in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1 Parties were married in May 2000. Parties admittedly live at Ontario in Canada. Disputes between the parties arose for the first time in the year 2003. Respondent no.3-wife, however, on an application filed by appellant no.1-husband apprehending danger to his G life, categorically admitted her fault and guilt. Even at that point of time no allegations of cheating and/or non-return of the Stridhan were made. It is only after a period of three years when the disputes and differences between the 563 H 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A parties wrecked up once again and on filing of an i· application for divorce, the father of the respondent No.3 came from Canada to Jalandhar to lodge FIR. Offence, if any, had been committed in Canada. FIR, however, has been lodged at Jalandhar only after the divorce B application was filed. No allegation has been made in the FIR that appellants at the time of marriage or thereafter demanded any dowry. The demand of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs allegedly was made only in Canada and that too after the • appellant nos. 2 and 3 arrived in Canada in March 2006, i.e., c almost after a period of five years from the date of marriage. The Superintendent of Police recommended 'cancellation' of the FIR for one reason or the other. However, the said recommendation had not been accepted. A charge-sheet has been filed. [Paras 8 and 10] [573-8-D; 577-A-C] D 1.2 The facts pleaded in the application for quashing of FIR before the High Court are not denied or disputed. ,., In fact, most of the documents relied on by the appellant are annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 herself. Therefore, any document which E the appellant intends to place by way of defence is not to be considered. It is also not a case where this court has to undertake a difficult task of appreciating the evidence brought on record by the parties. [Para 10] [577-C-D] F 1.3 The Submission that the marriage between the appellant no.1 and respondent No.3 was solemnized only for the purpose of getting the family settled at Canada is far fetched. For the purpose of constituting an offence for criminal breach of trust and/or cheating, the ingredients thereof as contained in ss. 405 and 415 G respectively must be borne out from the records. [Para 1 O] [577 -E-F] 1.4 For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the H accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time h,i,RMANPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA & ORS. V 565 STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS t of making promise or representation. Even in a case A where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part ... of the accused to keep his promise, in absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out. One of the ingredients of B cheating as defined in section 415 IPC is existence of an intention of making initial promise or existence thereof from the very beginning of formation of contract.[Paras 12 and 13] [578-G-H; 579-A-B] Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P 2003 (3) SCC 11; Hira Lal Hari c Lal Bhagwati v. CBI 2003 (5) SCC 257; Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. 2006 (6) S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.