Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmail Singh And Anr vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Ors on 16 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:162714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-25756 of 2015
Reserved on: 11.12.2023
Pronounced on: 16.12.2023
Gurmail Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: - Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Saurabh Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Anand, APP for UT, Chandigarh
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Nishant Sehgal, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu,
Advocate for respondent No.4.
*****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
petitioner prays to quash FIR No.14 dated 14.01.2009 registered at Police
Station Sector 34, Chandigarh under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
(Section 420 IPC added later on) along with all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Initially, petition was filed by two petitioners, namely, Gurmail
Singh and Smt. Jagdish Kaur. Later on, vide order dated 17.08.2023,
petition qua petitioner No.2 - Jagdish Kaur has been dismissed as withdrawn
in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners. As
such, now this petition is being considered qua petitioner No.1 - Gurmail
Singh only.
3. FIR was lodged on the complaint of one Malkiat Singh, as per
which, the natural father of petitioner No.2 - Jagdish Kaur is Mohinder
Singh but said Jagdish Kaur in connivance with petitioner No.1 - Gurmail
Singh submitted her matriculation certificate showing herself to be daughter
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
CRM-25756 of 2015 2023:PHHC:162714
of said petitioner - Gurmail Singh instead of her natural father - Mohinder
Singh. Further allegation is that she changed her date of birth from
01.05.1975 to 01.05.1978 and got her passport issued, wherein also she
showed the name of her father to be Gurmail Singh and her date of birth as
01.05.1978. Similar is the case with marriage certificate got issued by the
petitioner - Jagdish Kaur. After necessary investigation, challan has already
been filed.
4.1 It is contended by learned counsel that in fact Mohinder Singh
s/o Masta Singh is the natural father of Jagdish Kaur. Said Mohinder Singh
was married to Bhupinder Kaur and out of that wedlock, two daughters,
namely, Gurmeet Kaur and Jagdish Kaur (petitioner No.2) were born.
Mohinder Singh being drug addict, abandoned his wife Bhupinder Kaur.
Said Bhupinder Kaur approached Gram Panchayat of Village Khuda Ali
Sher, U.T., Chandigarh and before the Panchayat, Mohinder Singh refused to
maintain his wife Bhupinder Kaur and two daughters. Panchayat decided
that Mohinder Singh's younger brother Gurmail Singh i.e., petitioner No.1,
should bear the responsibility of Bhupinder Kaur and her two daughters.
Petitioner No.1 - Gurmail Singh agreed for that and treated Bhupinder
Kaur's daughters i.e., Gurmeet Kaur and Jagdish Kaur as his own daughters.
4.2 As Mohinder Singh was later on untraceable, so, Gurmail Singh
took Smt. Bhupinder Kaur as his wife. As per the customs prevalent in the
Jat Sikh Community, Karewa marriage of Gurmail Singh and Bhupinder
Kaur was performed and they started living as husband and wife. In all the
records, name(s) of said Bhupinder Kaur was entered as wife of Gurmail
Singh and her daughters were entered/ mentioned as daughters of Gurmail
Singh. Learned senior counsel further contends that it is the petitioner -
Gurmail Singh, who got the marriage of Jagdish Kaur solemnised as his own
Page No.2 out of 10 pages
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
CRM-25756 of 2015 2023:PHHC:162714
daughter.
4.3 It is contended that at one stage, respondent No.4 - complainant
- Malkiat Singh had even entered into compromise with the petitioners and
so, quashing petition bearing CRM-M-20274 of 2009 was filed. But
respondent No.4 backed out from the compromise.
4.4 Learned senior counsel contends further that no offence under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 or 120-B IPC is made out. It is the settled
preposition of law that special law prevails over the general law. Learned
counsel also contends that at the most, offence punishable under the
provisions of Passport Act, 1967 will be made out and that the general law
i.e., Indian Penal Code has no application. Learned senior counsel further
contends that there is absolutely no material to make out any offence against
petitioner No.1 - Gurmail Singh.
4.5 Learned counsel contends that complainant - Malkiat Singh is
not the aggrieved person and is merely an informant out of personal enmity
and party faction in the village as Bhupinder Kaur wife of petitioner No.1
and mother of petitioner No.2 has been Sarpanch of the Village. There was
no mens-rea on the part of the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 studied only up to
matriculation and has neither used the matriculation certificate later nor
applied for any job. Learned senior counsel lastly contends that present FIR
is a sheer abuse of the process of law and so, the FIR and consequent
proceedings deserve to be quashed.
5. Learned State Counsel opposed the petition by submitting that
after investigation, challan has already been filed and that during
investigation, complicity of the petitioners was found in the crime. Learned
State Counsel has also drawn attention towards the disclosure statement
(Annexure R.7) suffered by petitioner No.1 - Gurmail Singh, showing his
Page No.3 out of 10 pages
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
CRM-25756 of 2015 2023:PHHC:162714
complicity in the crime and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and have
appraised the record.
7. As the contents of the FIR and the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C would reveal, the main allegations are against petitioner No.2 -
Jagdish Kaur qua whom this petition has already been dismissed as
withdrawn. Allegations are to the effect that she procured passport by giving
false information regarding the name of her father and the date of her birth.
Similarly, she got her marriage registered by giving wrong particulars
regarding her date of birth and her father's name and same is the position
regarding her matriculation certificate.
8. The only evidence collected during investigation qua petitioner
No.1 - Gurmail Singh as pointed out by learned State Counsel, is the
disclosure statement of said Gurmail Singh, copy of which is Annexure R.7,
as per which, he had put his name by keeping a slip upon the name of
Mohinder Singh and then got the photocopy made of the matriculation
certificate of petitioner - Jagdish Kaur and changed her date of birth from
01.05.1975 to 01.05.1978 and submitted that form in the Passport Office and
got prepared the passport. Another disclosure made by said petitioner is that
he was present in the Passport Office and in the Office of Registrar, Hindu
Marriage, Rupnagar, when the necessary certificates were got issued by Smt.
Jagdish Kaur and signed the same as a witness.
9. Apart from the disclosure statement as above, which admittedly
was recorded during his police custody as per final report under Section 173
Cr.PC, no other evidence could be pointed out by learned State Counsel
against petitioner - Gurmail Singh. It is admitted position of law that in the
absence of any recovery of object or discovery of new fact, the disclosure
Page No.4 out of 10 pages
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
CRM-25756 of 2015 2023:PHHC:162714
statement suffered by an accused in custody before the Police is
inadmissible. It is not disputed that disclosure statement dated 17.01.2009
(Annexure R.7) was suffered by petitioner - Gurmail Singh while in
custody.
10. Learned State Counsel has not been able to point out any
document whatsoever, on which petitioner - Gurmail Singh put his
signatures as a witness, wherein petitioner - Jagdish Kaur had represented
her to be the daughter of Gurmail Singh and projected her date of birth to be
01.05.1978 instead of 01.05.1975.
11. Apart from above, even if it be assumed that petitioner Gurmail
Singh was conniving with Smt. Jagdish Kaur, when she got issued her
passport by mentioning her father's name as Gurmail Singh and date of birth
as 01.05.1978, at the most offence under Section 12 of the Passport Act,
1967 will be made out. The relevant portion of which reads as under: -
"12. Offences and penalties. --
(1) Whoever--
(a) contravenes the provisions of section 3; or
(b) knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material
information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under
this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to
alter the entries made in a passport or travel document; or
(c] to (e) xxxxxxxx (not relevant)
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two
years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
(2) Whoever abets any offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (1A)] shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the
abetment, be punishable with the punishment provided in that sub-section
for that offence."
12. In present case, at the most, it can be that petitioner - Jagdish
Kaur supplied incorrect information to the Passport Office for getting issued
Page No.5 out of 10 pages
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
CRM-25756 of 2015 2023:PHHC:162714
the passport. It is not the allegation that she forged the passport or the
marriage certificate. Learned State Counsel could not produce any
document to show that petitioner - Gurmail Singh had signed any document
before the Passport Office or before the Registrar, Hindu Marriage,
Rupnagar, in which petitioner - Jagdish Kaur presented herself to be
daughter of Gurmail Singh and projected her date of birth as 01.05.1978.
13. Still further, Section 15 of the Passport Act, 1967 reads s under:
"Section 15. Previous sanction of Central Government necessary
No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any
offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central
Government or such officer or authority as may be authorised by that
Government by order in writing in this behalf."
14. In this case, there is no such plea on the part of respondent State
that any such sanction as required under Section 15 of the Passport Act to
prosecute the petitioner Gurmail Singh, was obtained. There is no material to
indicate that any complaint was made by the passport authorities; or by
Registrar Marriages, who registered the marriage of petitioner Jagdish Kaur.
15. In all the aforesaid circumstances, question arises as to whether
it would be justifiable to continue the proceedings against respondent
Gurmail Singh?
16. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 that Section 482
Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the
inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as
are necessary:-
(i) To prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or
(ii) Otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Same are the powers with the High Court, when it exercises the powers
Page No.6 out of 10 pages
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
CRM-25756 of 2015 2023:PHHC:162714
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
17. In State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604,
Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down guidelines as to in which cases, quashing
of FIR can be allowed. It was held as under:
"8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guide- ïn myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
Page No.7 out of 10 pages
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
CRM-25756 of 2015 2023:PHHC:162714
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge."
18. In another case titled as Vineet Kumar and others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2017) 13 SCC 369, it
was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"23. This Court time and again has examined the scope of
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid down
several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State
of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 held that the High
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the
Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the following has been stated:
'7. ... In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to
quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or
that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a
court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a
lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of
the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing
the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than
the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according
to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose
of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court
to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to
appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."
Page No.8 out of 10 pages
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
CRM-25756 of 2015 2023:PHHC:162714
19. In Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State of UP, CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO (S). of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 39 of 2022)
decided on 28.11.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the criminal
proceedings can be quashed when the complaint on the basis of which FIR
was registered does not disclose any act of the accused or their participation
in the commission of crime. It has been held as under:
"41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is
with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn
process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique
motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court
cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the
categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Judicial process is a solemn
proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of
operation or harassment."
20. Still further, recently Mohammad Wajid and Another v. State
of U.P. and Ors. 2023 SCC OnLineSC 951, it has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a
duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the
case record over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection, try to read in between the lines. The Court, while exercising
its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Indian
Constitution, need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the
course of an investigation.
21. In view of entire evaluation of the facts and legal position as
above, this Court finds that as allegations set out in the FIR and the final
report under section 173 CrPC do not constitute any offence against
Page No.9 out of 10 pages
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
CRM-25756 of 2015 2023:PHHC:162714
petitioner Gurmail Singh. The case is squarely covered under parameter (c}
laid down in Bhajan Lal's Case for quashing the FIR qua petitioner Gurmail
Singh. Therefore, the petitioner Gurmail should not be compelled to undergo
the rigmarole and ordeal of trial and so, quashing of the proceedings would
serve the solitary purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C so as to prevent the abuse of
process of the Court.
22. Consequently, the present petition is hereby allowed qua
petitioner Gurmail Singh. As such, FIR No.14 dated 14.01.2009 registered
at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B
IPC (Section 420 IPC added later on) along with all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
December 16, 2023 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
renu JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page No.10 out of 10 pages Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162714
10 of 10
