- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Inderjit Singh Grewal Petitioner v. State Of Punjab And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, Inderjit Singh Grewal, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash complaint No. 87/02/09 dated 12.6.2009 and all consequent proceedings, including a summoning order and an order directing him to produce his minor son for counselling. The dispute arises from a marriage solemnized in 1998 between the petitioner and respondent-complainant Amandeep Kaur, which ended in a mutual consent divorce decree dated 20.3.2008. The divorce proceedings included statements by the complainant acknowledging receipt of permanent alimony and agreeing to the custody of the child being with the petitioner. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint alleging fraud in obtaining the divorce and claimed custody of the child along with compensation for rent. A police enquiry found the allegations false and noted the divorce was mutually agreed upon with custody arrangements in place. The petitioner contended the complaint was frivolous and intended to harass him, while the Magistrate issued summons against him, which he challenged.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable given the prior mutual consent divorce and custody arrangement.
- Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the summoning order and entertain the complaint concerning custody of the minor child.
- Whether the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or an abuse of the legal process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The divorce was mutually agreed upon with the complainant voluntarily making statements admitting receipt of permanent alimony and consenting to child custody arrangements.
- The complaint filed later is false, frivolous, and intended solely to harass the petitioner.
- The Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to decide custody matters, which fall under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
- Relied on precedent in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal (2005 (3) SCC 299) to argue the complaint should be quashed.
- The petitioner had paid substantial alimony, including Rs. 27 lakhs in cash outside court, reinforcing the finality of the settlement.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The petitioner concealed facts and obtained the divorce decree by fraud and emotional blackmail, promising to migrate to the USA and call her later on the basis of a contract marriage.
- Despite the decree, they continued cohabitation and social interactions as husband and wife, including vacations and school engagements for the child.
- The complainant was forced to sign documents without proper legal representation or consent in court.
- The Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to grant custody.
- The complaint is valid and should not be quashed as the divorce decree is disputed and a civil suit to set it aside has been filed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal, 2005 (3) SCC 299 | Quashing of complaint where wife sought to harass husband despite a mutual consent divorce and compromise. | The court distinguished this precedent, finding it inapplicable because the complainant disputes the settlement and alleges fraud, making the complaint a matter involving disputed facts unsuitable for quashing at this stage. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed whether the complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was made out on its face or motivated by malice. The Court noted the petitioner’s claim of a mutual consent divorce with an agreed custody arrangement and alimony payment. However, the complainant disputed the genuineness of the settlement, alleging fraud and continued cohabitation post-divorce, supported by documentary evidence. The Court held that these were disputed questions of fact inappropriate for adjudication in a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC. The Court also examined the applicability of the cited precedent and found it distinguishable because the present complainant did not accept the compromise and had initiated civil proceedings challenging the divorce decree. The Court concluded that the complaint disclosed an offence on its face and was not shown to be malicious or vexatious. Consequently, no grounds existed to quash the complaint, summoning order, or subsequent proceedings.
Holding and Implications
The petition to quash the complaint, summoning order, and subsequent proceedings is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is that the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 will proceed against the petitioner. The Court did not set any new precedent but reaffirmed that disputed factual issues and allegations of fraud in matrimonial matters are not suitable for summary quashing. The jurisdictional question regarding custody under the Act versus the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act was not decisively resolved but implicitly recognized as a matter for trial and not quashing.
GURDEV SINGH, J.
The petitioner, Inderjit Singh Grewal, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint No. 87/02/09 dated 12.6.2009 (Annexure P-3) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, summoning order dated 12.6.2009 (Annexure P-4) and all the consequent proceedings, including the order dated 3.10.2009(Annexure P-5), vide which he has been asked to produce his minor son in the Court for counselling. He has averred in the petition that his marriage was performed with Amandeep Kaur — respondent-complainant on 23.9.1998 as per Sikh rites at Jalandhar. Both of them are well educated and are working as Lecturers. However, due to their temperamental differences, they could not pull together and mutually decided to get the divorce. Accordingly, petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was filed in which their initial statements were recorded on 19.9.2007 At that time, it was stated by the complainant that she had been living separately from him since 23.9.2005 and there was no chances of their living together and that they have decided to part their ways mutually and that the custody of the child would remain with him. Their final statements were recorded on 20.3.2008 At that time she admitted the receipt of Rs. 3 lacs towards permanent alimony and maintenance and also stated that all the disputes regarding the dowry articles and past and future permanent alimony have been settled. She agreed to remain bound by that statement. On the basis of those statements, the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce, vide order dated 20.3.2008 Now, after the gap of more than 1½ years, the complainant filed the above said complaint on false and frivolous grounds alleging that the divorce was obtained by fraud and that even after the divorce she has been staying and cohabiting with him. In this complaint, she has sought the custody of the child along with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- per month toward the rent being paid by her. In fact, a detailed enquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, City-I, Ludhiana, into the allegations made in the complaint and all those allegations were found to be false. It was observed by the Enquiry officer that their marriage was mutually dissolved as they could not pull together and there was continuous quarrels between them and that at that time they entered into an agreement vide which the custody of the child was given to him. It was also found that the contention of the complainant that she had been living with him even after the divorce was false. The complaint so filed by the complainant is totally false and frivolous. The same has been filed with the sole intention of harassing him. In fact he had paid Rs. 30 lacs as permanent alimony, out of which Rs. 27lacs were paid in cash outside the court and the balance amount was paid in the court itself. It was only thereafter she agreed to hand over the custody of the child to him. By making false complaint, she is making attempt to get the custody of the child. No offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is made out from the contents of the complaint. The Judicial Magistrate illegally passed the order summoning him as an accused in the complaint. The Magistrate has no jurisdiction to decide the issue regarding the custody of the child and the complainant can seek the custody of the child only under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.1956
On notice of motion having been issued, respondent No. 2 filed detailed reply to the petition. She pleaded therein that the petitioner is concealing the facts from the Court. In fact, he was emotionally black mailing her to get the decree of divorce for the reasons that he would go to USA on the basis of the marriage and that after getting necessary Visa, he would call her to that country on the basis of the contract marriage. Even after the passing of the decree of divorce, they had been living together. The petitioner went to USA in the month of August, 2008, but the said contract of marriage did not materialize. He had been talking with her from USA on the telephone almost daily. Even after the decree of dissolution of marriage, they along with the minor son went to Dehradun and Massoorie on vacation. Both of them had been attending the social functions together. She had been regularly attending the parents teacher meeting in the school of the minor son. She had even been putting her signatures on the school diary of the child. Even the said sum of Rs. 3 lacs was given by her to the petitioner. It was only after she was thrown out of the matrimonial home that she realized the fraud played upon her. She was black mailed and forced to sign the documents. She has already filed a suit for declaration for setting aside the decree of divorce which was obtained by the petitioner by exercise of fraud upon her. Even in the divorce proceedings, the lawyer on her behalf was engaged by the petitioner and she never met that lawyer. Her signatures were not obtained in the Court but were obtained in the room adjacent to the Court room. The Magistrate has the power to grant the custody of the child under Section 21 of the Act. There is no ground for quashing the complaint or the summoning order and the subsequent proceedings, including the order dated 3.10.2009
I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was with the free consent of the parties that the petition for mutual divorce was filed in which the complainant voluntarily made her initial statement and final statement in which she admitted the receipt of permanent alimony and gave the custody of the child to the petitioner. The matter was finally settled between the parties and it was only thereafter that the divorce petition was filed. Therefore, the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act is clearly barred and is liable to be quashed along with the summoning order and the other orders passed therein. The only intention of the complainant, by filing this complaint is to harass the petitioner. When such is the case, the complaint, summoning order and the consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. He has placed reliance on Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal 2005 (3) SCC 299
On the other hand, it has been submitted by l earned counsel for respondent No. 2 that there was no such final settlement between the parties and the petitioner played a fraud upon the respondent for obtaining the decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under the pretext that he wanted to migrate to USA and that such a decree of divorce will help him to move to that country and he would call her to that country on the pretext of contracting a marriage. Even after the passing of the decree, the complainant had been residing with the petitioner and that fact stand proved from the documents annexed with the reply. They had been talking to each other for minutes together on the telephone and even after the petitioner went to USA, for a short spell of time, they continue to talk with each other on the telephone. They had been going together to their common relations and other social gatherings. The child was being looked after by both of them and the complainant had been putting her signatures on his school reports etc. When there was no such final settlement and the decree of divorce was only a sham transaction, for the setting aside of which a civil suit has also been filed, the complaint under Section 12 of the Act, is very much competent and there is no ground for quashing the same.
In Ruchi Agarwal's case (supra), civil and criminal litigation had been going between the husband and wife and they entered into a compromise. The marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. In spite of that compromise the complaint filed by the wife under Section 498-A and 506 IPC was not withdrawn. That FIR was ordered to be quashed on the ground that the wife wanted to harass the husband even after getting the relief under the compromise, so entered into between them. The ratio of that ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The complainant is disputing the settlement which has been put forward by the petitioner as a ground for quashing the complaint. She has not admitted the factum of the compromise. She has come out with the plea that the petitioner obtained the decree of divorce by playing fraud upon her and that it was a sham decree obtained by the petitioner for enabling him to migrate to USA and that he had shown his intention to call her to that country on the basis of contracting marriage. She has also taken the plea that even after passing of the decree they had been living together as husband and wife. All these are disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated while deciding the present petition.
In order to quash the complaint, this Court is to see if no offence is made out on the face of it or that the same is actuated with malice on the part of the complainant in order to wreck vengeance from the petitioner. A bare perusal of the complaint shows that the offence under Section 12 is clearly made out there from. In view of the stand taken by the complainant, which stands corroborated by the documents annexed therewith, it cannot be said that the complaint is actuated with a malice on the part of the complaint in order to wreck vengeance from the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has already filed a civil suit for setting aside the decree of divorce passed by the matrimonial court, in which the alleged settlement is stated to have been arrived at between the parties.
No ground is made out for quashing the FIR, the summoning order and the subsequent proceedings.
Petition is dismissed accordingly.
(GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE
August 09, 2010
PARAMJIT
Alert