Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 15 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
CRM-M No. 34635 of 2022 (O&M)
2024:PHHC: 037639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 34635 of 2022 (O&M)
Reserved on: 05.03.2024
Pronounced on :15.03.2024
Manpreet Kaur and another .......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for petitioner No.2.
Mr. Siddharath Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent No. 2-complainant.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
The petitioners, by way of present petition filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C., seeks quashing of FIR No. 38 dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-1)
under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhadaur,
District Barnala (Punjab) alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
[2] The FIR (supra) is primarily based on an alleged breach of
agreement dated 17.08.2020 (Annexure P-2) executed between the father of
petitioner No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2-complainant. Relevant
extract from the agreement dated 17.08.2020 followed by the extract from
the FIR (supra), are re-produced hereunder:-
" Agreement dated 17.08.2020:-
That Manpreet Kaur daughter of Party No. 2 had secured 6
bands in IELTS in September 2019 where after Party No. 2 with
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
the best of their knowledge and free will as also with the consent
of their above said daughter got her engaged with Gurdeep Singh
Gill son of Party No. 1 where after with the consent of Manpreet
Kaur she was sent to Canada and the entire expenses were borne
by Party No. 1. After 3½ months Manpreet Kaur came back to
her parents place (Party No. 2) for getting married with son of
Party No. 1 Gurdeep Singh Gill where after both the parties got
the marriage performed of their son and daughter with due
customs in the presence of all the relatives and friends on
25.12.2019 at Brar Palace Bhagta Bhaika and the entire expenses
were borne by the Party No. 1. After marriage both Manpreet
Kaur and Gurdeep Singh Gill are happily leading their married
life and now Manpreet Kaur has again gone back to Canada and
Party No.1 had borne the entire expenses of sending her again
and till date Party No. 1 has spent total Rs.30 Lacs and apart
from this the college in Canada in which Manpreet Kaur has to
study one Semester Fee amounting to Rs. 4.50 Lacs has to be paid
by 18.08.2020 by Party No. 1 and will keep on paying further also
and Manpreet Kaur while staying in Canada along with her study
will try to work and take out her expenses as well as fees and
Manpreet Kaur will be bound to finish the paper work as soon as
possible and call her husband Gurdeep Singh Gill to Canada. If
Manpreet Kaur rather than calling her husband Gurdeep Singh
Gill to Canada keeps dilly-delaying or gets married over there
again then Party No. 2 shall be bound to return whatever money
is spent by Party No. 1 along with 1.5% interest and if they do not
return Party No. I shall recover the entire amount along with
interest from Party No. 2 legally and if Manpreet Kaur again calls
her husband Gurdeep Singh Gill to Canada then she will not leave
him and neither will Gurdeep Singh Gill leave his wife Manpreet
Kaur.
FIR No. 38 dated 01.07.2022
That the complainant was desirous of settling abroad and the
complainant and his family wanted the complainant to go to
Canada and settle, so in the meantime, accused Balwinder Singh
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
son of Harchand Singh, resident of Sangatpura, District Moga,
met who told that his daughter Manpreet Kaur has got 6 band
from IELTS and his family wants that if any eligible boy is ready
to send her to Canada by paying all expenses, then they are ready
to marry Manpreet Kaur with that boy. So after 1-2 meetings with
accused mentioned in the subject, it was decided between us that
we will bear whatever the cost will come to send Manpreet Kaur
abroad and the marriage will also be done with the rituals and
customs of Manpreet Kaur and the complainant permanently. It
was also decided that after marriage an application will be filed
by Manpreet Kaur in favour of complainant to settle in Canada
with Manpreet Kaur in the immigration file, and that all this work
was decided to be done by Manpreet Kaur and her parents, that
is, by the accused mentioned in the subject. 2. That after our
mutual consent, an engagement ceremony of Manpreet Kaur and
the complainant was held on dated 03-09-2019 at Kaka Sweets
and Restaurant at Mukam Badhani Kalan, after which Manpreet
Kaur was sent to Canada and she was sent to ST. Clair College,
Chathan, Ontario was admitted. All the expenses of which were
done by the complainant. Copy is attached. 3. That after that
Manpreet Kaur came back to India in December 2019 to get
married with the complainant and the complainant and his family
organized a grand wedding program at Brar Palace, Bhakta
Bhaika with maximum expenses and the marriage of complainant
and Manpreet Kaur took place in Gurudwara Singh Sabha,
Sangatpura on 25-12-2019 through Anand Karz and after some
time after the marriage, Manpreet Kaur returned to Canada again
in January 2020 after cohabiting as wife in the house of the
complainant. 4. That the marriage was also registered at the
Registrar's Office, Bhadaur for filing the immigration file of the
complainant during Manpreet Kaur's stay in India. 5. That the
complainant spent approximately Rs.57,00,000/- on the asking
and believing the accused of the subject matter which amount was
spent in cash and through Bank in the presence of witness from
time to time.
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
6. That earlier Manpreet Kaur used to talk to complainant
and his family members over phone but after some time Manpreet
Kaur's behaviour started to change and she started refraining
from talking to complainant and his family members. It also
happened that the other accused mentioned in the subject also
started ignoring complainant and his family members, while many
times the complainant and his family members went to the said
accused from time to time and complained that Manpreet Kaur is
not calling or is refusing to answer the phone. From the
conversation of whose, it was clear that Manpreet Kaur is doing
all this with the conspiracy and consent of her parents and
brother. 7. That on 22-01-2022, Manpreet Kaur again came back
to Punjab, and was brought by the complainant from Delhi
Airport. But the complainant saw that the behaviour of Manpreet
Kaur had completely changed who was refusing to talk to
complainant and after staying for 3 days at complainant's house,
she left the house of complainant with the accused in the subject
cited above. When the complainant tried to bring Manpreet Kaur
back to house again, she started to hesitate. Then the said accused
gave a straight reply to the complainant and said that Manpreet
Kaur is not ready to live in the house of the complainant at any
cost rather she wants to end the relationship and all the accused
mentioned in the subject have cheated the complainant by
planning with a calculated conspiracy and now she wants to end
the relationship with complainant and return to Canada again.
The complainant and his family tried to bring Manpreet Kaur
back to their home through the relatives, but Manpreet Kaur
instead of staying at complainant's house started threatening and
said that if complainant forcibly takes her home then she will kill
herself by eating some poisonous substance and implicate
complainant's whole family in a murder case because of which
complainant and his family are very scared of and the
complainant is now fully convinced that he has been defrauded of
such a huge amount of Rs.57,00,000/- by the accused persons
mentioned in subject under calculated conspiracy which is very a
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
necessary to be recovered. 8. Accordingly, by presenting the
complaint, it is requested that by registering a case against the
accused persons mentioned in the subject, under relevant legal
provisions and after arresting them, the amount of Rs. 57,00,000/-
should be recovered and should be returned to the complainant
and justice should be given to the complainant."
[3] Impugning the aforesaid FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that even if the contents of agreement and the FIR were taken at
face value, at best, the present was a case of breach of terms of agreement
and there was no element of cheating involved. Learned counsel pointed out
towards the covenants under the agreement dated 17.08.2020, whereby in
case of any delaying in tactics being adopted by petitioner No. 1 in calling
respondent No.2 to Canada or petitioner No.1 getting remarried in Canada,
petitioner No. 2 at best was bound to return the amount alongwith interest
and thus, the proper remedy for respondent No. 2 or his father was to file a
suit for recovery by seeking enforcement of the agreement dated 17.08.2020.
Relevant portion of the agreement dated 17.08.2020 in this regard is re-
produced hereunder:-
" If Manpreet Kaur rather than calling her husband Gurdeep
Singh Gill to Canada keeps dilly-delaying or gets married over
there again then Party No. 2 shall be bound to return whatever
money is spent by Party No. 1 along with 1.5% interest and if they
do not return Party No. I shall recover the entire amount along
with interest from Party No. 2 legally."
[3.1] Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the
entire FIR, it was nowhere alleged that right from inception, there was any
dishonest or fraudulent intent, apparent on the part of petitioner No. 1 or her
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
father, so as to make respondent No.2 or his father to part with the money
for sending petitioner No. 1 abroad or spending towards her education there
and thus, no offence under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC was made out. He
also submits that even as per the records, the agreement dated 17.08.2020
was executed between the parents of the parties i.e. Bhola Singh, father of
respondent No. 2 and Balwinder Singh (petitioner No. 2), father of petitioner
No. 1 and as such, no complaint as regards cheating on its basis could have
been entertained at the instance of respondent No. 2-Gurdeep Singh Gill.
[4] On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed
the prayer made in the present petition, while submitting that the petitioners
having made respondent No. 2 and his family to spend on her education have
chosen not to take respondent No. 2 abroad and as such, committed an act of
cheating; thus, the FIR in question warrants no interference.
[5] Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 also opposed the
prayer made herein while submitting that the FIR in question was registered
after a thorough inquiry being conducted by the investigating agency having
associated the petitioners therein, followed by filing of final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. as well as farming of charges by the Court concerned
upon the material available on the file vide order dated 17.10.2023 and thus,
at this stage, the Court below having formed prima facie opinion based on
the material available on record, the exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. was not called for in order to quash the FIR in question. For the said
purpose, he placed reliance upon latest decision rendered by this Court in
case "Jaspal Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others", 2023(2) RCR
(Criminal) 715. Learned counsel also submitted that once the charge was
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
framed by the trial Court vide its order dated 17.10.2023, the appropriate
remedy available to the petitioners was to assail the same in revisional
jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., rather than, invoking Section 482
Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR.
[5.1] Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also placed reliance upon
the documents attached to the written statement to contend that petitioner
No.1 having reached Canada, sent certain messages to respondent No.2-
complainant for the purpose of enabling him to migrate to Canada, however,
during the inquiry conducted by the police officials, petitioner No.1 could
not produce any document to support the same.
[5.2] Referring to the contents of the FIR coupled with the final
report, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant pointed out that a
clear cut case of dishonest intention on the part of petitioners, right from the
inception, was clearly made out and thus, there was no occasion for this
Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
While referring to Annexure R-2/1, learned counsel respondent
No.2 also pointed out that the version mentioned therein was in total contrast
to the stand taken in the petition.
[6] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book/relevant record and I find substance in submissions made by
the ld. Counsel for the petitioners. During arguments as well as in his reply,
respondent No 2 has admitted the execution of the agreement between his
father and petitioner No 2. Sum and substance of this agreement is that all
the future expenses regarding the studies of petitioner No 1 at Canada, in
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
addition to Rs. 30 lakh already paid by him, will be borne by the father of re-
spondent No 2 and in turn, petitioner No 1 will be bound to finish the paper-
work and call her husband i.e. respondent No 2 to Canada. At the same time,
consequences in case of breach of this agreement were also specified therein
and it was duly recorded that petitioner No 2 shall be bound to return what-
ever money is spent along with 1.5% interest and if they do not return, father
of respondent No 2 shall recover the entire amount legally along with
interest.
[7] It is not the case of respondent No 2/complainant that this
agreement was entered under some coercion, rather the father of respondent
No.2/complainant entered into this agreement with eyes wide open,
respondent No 2 also being fully aware about this factual position. In agree-
ment, it was categorically specified that father of respondent No.2/
complainant would be entitled only for the recovery of money spent by him
through legally permissible ways. Having entered into this agreement, the
only recourse available to respondent No 2 is to approach Civil Court for the
recovery of money as the liability in the present case is only civil. After
restricting his options by way of this agreement, respondent No 2 is not
entitled to give criminal colour to the present case so as to pressurize the
petitioners. Once an agreement has been entered between the parties
specifying the consequences of the breach as well, then registration of the
FIR and initiation of the criminal proceedings by respondent No 2 for the
breach of the agreement clearly amounts to abuse of the process of law and
the judicial process.
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
[8] There is also substance in the another argument raised by ld.
Counsel for the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, it cannot be held that right from the inception, there was any dishonest
or fraudulent intent or inducement by petitioners. Marriage in the present
case was held on 25.12.2019, while the agreement was registered on
17.08.2020. Execution of the agreement nullifies the case of respondent
No.2 because of the fact that in the agreement it was duly mentioned that
both the parties were happily leading their married life. Therefore, the
requirement of dishonest intentions from the inception so as to attract any
offence under Section 420 IPC was never fulfilled in the present case.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment Of Hon'ble Apex
Court in "Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station"
bearing neutral citation 2024 INSC 49, which has also been relied upon by
the ld. Counsel for the petitioner. Relevant para of the same is reproduced
here under:
"11. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions
of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that
the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he
has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver
property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e.,
(i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly
inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and
(iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time
of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the of-
fence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist
from the inception when the promise or representation was
made."
[9] Judgment in Jaspal Kaur's case, which has been relied upon
by the learned Counsel for the respondent No 2, did not held as a principle
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
of law that once charges have been framed, this Court cannot exercise its
power u/s 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, rather it was merely an observation in
the form of obiter in relation to the facts and circumstances of that particular
case. Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced here under:
"14. A reading of the judgments (supra) in the light of the facts
of the present case would clearly establish that there are suffi-
cient grounds to presume that the offence has been committed
by the petitioner as well in conspiracy with her husband-Jasmer
Singh. The specific role of the petitioner has been clearly enu-
merated by the complainant not only in the original complaint
but also during the course of enquiry, which culminated in the
FIR, and therefore, the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR as
also the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., which has culmi-
nated into an order of framing of charges prima facie estab-
lishes the commission of the offence by the petitioner as well
and a full-fledged enquiry or appreciation of evidence is not to
be done at the stage."
[10] A perusal of the aforesaid reveals that this point was neither ar-
gued nor there was any discussion as such on this aspect. To the contrary,
judgment relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the petitioners in "Anand Ku-
mar Mohatta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)", reported as 2019(11)
SCC 706, upheld the counter position. Relevant para from this judgment are
reproduced here under:
"Conclusion
15. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that once the
charge sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable.
We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the
position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat,
2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 632 : (2011) 7 SCC 59. In the case of
Joseph Salvaraj A. (supra), this Court while deciding the ques-
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
tion whether the High Court could entertain the 482 petition for
quashing of FIR, when the charge sheet was filed by the police
during the pendency of the 482 petition, observed: -
"16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various
sections under which the appellant is being charged and
is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not
made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR.
Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Sin-
gle Judge could have still examined whether the offences
alleged to have been committed by the appellant were
prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR,
charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not."
16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision in-
voked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr.
P.C and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order un-
der Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C reads as fol-
lows:-
"482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.- Noth-
ing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the in-
herent powers of the High Court to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any order under this
Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
17. There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts
the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of
process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of
the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can ex-
ercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the
discharge application is pending with the trial court G. Sagar
Suri and Anr. v. State of U.P and Others, 2000(1) RCR (Crimi-
nal) 707 : (2000) 2 SCC 636 (Para 7). Umesh Kumar v. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 591 (Para 20). In-
deed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated
against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but
not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized
into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the
abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR
has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The
power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of
power of any court."
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
[11]. Therefore, considering the parameters laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and
others", reported as 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383, in my considered opin-
ion, present petition satisfies the criteria specified under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to invoke its powers for quashing of the FIR to prevent the abuse of
the process of Court and present case is duly covered under the following
specified conditions in Ch.Bhajan Lal's case (supra), which is reproduced
hereunder:-
"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;"
[12]. In view of the discussion held above, petition is allowed. FIR
No. 38 dated 01.07.2022, registered under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC at Po-
lice Station Bhadaur, District Barnala (Punjab) and all the subsequent pro-
ceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
[13]. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
March 15, 2024 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'sonika JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037639
12 of 12
