Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2122 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5910/2006)
Pashaura Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. ...Respondents
JUDGEMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
Leave granted.
2. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has
challenged the order dated May 24, 2006 passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the said order, the petition
filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing F.I.R. No. 9 dated January 21, 2002
registered at Police Station Sehna under Sections 498-A, 494,
506/34, IPC has been dismissed.
3. Kamaljeet Kaur is a landed immigrant of Canada.
On May 7, 1997, she married Pashaura Singh Sidhu -
appellant - at village Ghall Kalan, District Moga, Punjab. She
left for Canada on May 15, 1997. She sponsored her husband
and, accordingly, Pashaura Singh went to Canada in 1998.
They stayed together for few months and then relations
between them became strained. Kamaljeet, thereafter, started
living separately in Ontario. Pashaura Singh applied for
divorce and dissolution of marriage before the Supreme Court
of British Columbia and a divorce judgment was passed in his
favour and their marriage stood dissolved with effect from
February 8, 2001. After the dissolution of marriage, Pashaura
Singh came to India and remarried on January 2, 2002.
Pashaura Singh went back to Canada with his newly wedded
wife and both of them have been residing there.
4. On January 21, 2002, Kamaljeet's brother Balwant
Singh lodged a first information report being F.I.R. No. 9 at
Police Station Sehna against Pashaura Singh, Hakam Singh
(father of Pashaura Singh), Randhir Singh (brother of Pashaura
Singh), Charanjit Kaur (wife of Randhir Singh) and Harbans
Kaur (mother of Pashaura Singh) alleging therein that on May
7, 1997 he performed his sister Kamaljeet Kaur's marriage with
2
Pashaura Singh; that at the time of marriage, according to his
status, he gave rupees four lacs in cash, gold jewelry, utensils,
almirah, fifty-one suits, five bags etc. but the accused started
harassing his sister Kamaljeet Kaur and threatened to kill her if
she did not bring car, electronic items etc. and that he has now
come to know that Pashaura Singh has entered into second
marriage in the first week of January, 2002. A case under
Sections 498-A, 494, 506/34, IPC was registered against the
accused persons and it appears that the police submitted
challan against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Barnala.
5. Randhir Singh, Charanjit Kaur (Rajinder Kaur),
Hakam Singh and Harbans Kaur filed a petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R.
No. 9 and criminal prosecution against them. Vide order dated
April 29, 2004, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed
F.I.R. No. 9 dated January 21, 2002 registered against them
and all subsequent proceedings.
6. Pashaura Singh by a separate petition under
Section 482 of the Code prayed for quashing F.I.R. No. 9/2002
3
and the subsequent criminal proceedings against him but, as
noticed above, the High Court by its order dated May 24, 2006
dismissed his petition. The High Court in its cryptic order, while
dismissing the petition, observed that Pashaura Singh has
married second time on January 2, 2002 while he was already
married with Kamaljeet Kaur and the aforesaid marriage has
not been dissolved.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties
and upon careful perusal of the materials placed before us, in
our judgment, the order of High Court cannot be sustained for
more than one reason. In the first place, the High Court gravely
erred in observing that Pashaura Singh married second time on
January 2, 2002 while he was already married with Kamaljeet
Kaur and the aforesaid marriage has not been dissolved. The
certificate of divorce dated February 26, 2001 issued by the
New Westminster Registry, Supreme Court of British Columbia
shows that the marriage of Pashaura Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur
stood dissolved on February 8, 2001. As a matter of fact, this
fact is noticed in the order dated April 29, 2004 whereby the
High Court quashed F.I.R. No. 9 and the subsequent criminal
4
proceedings against the family members of Pashaura Singh. In
the affidavit filed by Gurmail Singh, Deputy Superintendent of
Police in response to the petition filed by the appellant under
Section 482 before the High Court, it has been admitted that
during investigation on March 14, 2002 Hakam Singh had
produced photocopy of divorce certificate purporting to have
been issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The
observation of the High Court, thus, that Pashaura Singh
married second time, although his marriage has not been
dissolved, is ex-facie contrary to record.
8. Section 494, IPC, inter-alia, requires the following
ingredients to be satisfied, namely, (i) the accused must have
contracted first marriage; (ii) he must have married again; (iii)
the first marriage must be subsisting and (iv) the spouse must
be living. Insofar as present case is concerned the appellant's
marriage with Kamaljeet Kaur was not subsisting on January 2,
2002 when he is said to have married second time. Pertinently
before the High Court, along with reply, the complainant
Balwant Singh annexed copy of an affidavit filed by Kamaljeet
Kaur which states that she was not aware of the divorce
5
proceedings filed by her husband Pashaura Singh. However,
from this affidavit, it is apparent that her husband has obtained
a divorce judgment. There is nothing in the affidavit that divorce
judgment has been stayed or set aside. On the face of the
allegations made in the first information report, therefore,
ingredients of the offence under Section 494, IPC are not
satisfied.
9. Insofar as offence under Section 498-A is
concerned, the High Court in its earlier order dated April 29,
2004 in the petition filed by the family members, observed thus:
"I have perused the First Information Report
registered against the petitioners.
The only allegation against the petitioner is that they
started harassing Kamaljeet Kaur Gill for not bringing more
dowry. No demand of dowry has been made by the
petitioners, nor is there any specific entrustment, as alleged
in the First Information Report of dowry articles to the
petitioners. Parties have divorced each other, as per the
order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Annexure
P-1). Order is dated February 25, 2001. It is after this divorce
that Pishora Singh got married in India on January 2, 2002."
10. Moreover, in the affidavit of Kamaljeet Kaur referred
to hereinabove, there is not a word about demand of dowry or
harassment on account of dowry by the appellant.
6
11. We have no hesitation in holding that the first
information report lodged by Balwant Singh is manifestly
attended with malafides and actuated with ulterior motive. The
prosecution of the appellant is not at all legitimate, rather it is
frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process. The
appellant has made out a case for quashing the first information
report and all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto.
12. For the reasons indicated above, appeal is allowed
and order dated May 24, 2006 passed by the High court of
Punjab and Haryana is set aside. Resultantly, F.I.R. No. 9
dated January 21, 2002 registered at Police Station Sehna and
all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto stand quashed
and set aside.
13. The pending applications stand disposed of.
........................J
(Tarun Chatterjee)
........................J
(R. M. Lodha)
New Delhi,
November 13, 2009.
7
