Amarinder Singh Sidhu vs State (Union Territory, Chandigarh) and Another

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 438 Cr. P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 135 dated 26.8.2009, registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh, under Sections 323, 498-A and 506 IPC. Lateron offence u/s 406 IPC was added.

Admittedly, the petitioner and his wife-Manpreet Sangha, complainant/respondent No. 2, are citizens of United States of America (hereinafter referred to as "U.S.A."). It is also not denied that the marriage subsisted for a period of 15 years, out of which for 14 years, the parties cohabited as husband and wife in U.S.A.

Brief facts of the case are being noticed hereunder from the complaint, made by Manpreet Sangha, aggrieved wife-respondent No. 2 and from the pleadings made in the present petition.

In the complaint, it is stated that Manpreet Sangha was married with the petitioner on 8.1.1994. Immediately after the marriage, the husband went to U.S.A., whereas the wife migrated there in July 1994. A grievance was made by the wife that she was made to work as a Receptionist for a period of four years in U.S.A. and was subjected to harassment, maltreatment and cruelty. Various instances, to prove this assertion, have been given in the FIR. Further it is a case of the wife that she gave birth to a son named Shaan Sidhu on 10.11.2001 and a daughter named Gia Sidhu on 11.7.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the photographs and has pleaded that the couple was living a very luxurious life in U.S.A., however, due to recession there, the marriage went into doldrums. Learned counsel has submitted that both husband and wife had executed a marital agreement dated 25.2.2009 (Annexure P4). It is further stated that as per the marital agreement, the aggrieved wife along with the children had to stay in India in the house of the father of petitioner/husband. Furthermore, the husband had to pay Rs. 50,000 before the 10th day of every month to the wife, during her stay in the house of the father of the petitioner, otherwise, Rs. 1,00,000 was to be paid apart from other expenses. It is further stated that the husband has not performed his part of marital agreement. In the FIR, it is further stated that on 18.7.2009, the petitioner/husband, at Chandigarh, came drunk in the house of his father and banged at the door of the room of the complainant, hurled abuses and hit her on the head. To save herself, the complainant had to call the police. In the very long FIR, which runs into nine pages, various instances of cruelty perpetuated by the husband have been narrated. Suffice it to say that all those incidents of cruelty have occurred in U.S.A., except the one dated 18.7.2009. However, FIR in the present case was lodged on 26.8.2009, after the delay of 1 month and 8 days. It is stated that the complaint was submitted by the wife on 18.7.2009, however, the police was conducting inquiry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the version (Annexure P5), which was given to the police, at first instance and lateron in the FIR, there have been numerous improvements.

Be that as it may, this Court cannot ignore the fact that after registration of the present FIR, the husband went to U.S.A. It is also not disputed that after registration of the FIR, the wife had also travelled to U.S.A. The divorce has been granted by the competent Court at U.S.A. on 30.9.2011 where wife was represented by counsel. Furthermore the Matrimonial Court at U.S.A. had awarded $ 700 as maintenance to the wife and $ 400 each to both the children, besides their remaining expenses. The judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles dated 30.9.2011 (Annexure P8) gives details of child support programme and the part which has to be performed by each of the parents.

After going through the complaint, pleadings and hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that larger part of the offence had taken place in U.S.A. It was held in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and Others v. State of Punjab and Others 2009 (2) RCR 956 that where larger part of offence has been committed outside India, continuation of criminal proceedings in India may amount to abuse of process of Court. It is contended that since the accused is a citizen of U.S.A. and larger part of the offence has been committed out of India, the Investigating Agency is also required to obtain previous sanction of the Central Government u/s 188 Cr. P.C.

Ms. Ashima Mor, Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. 1/U.T. Chandigarh, on instructions from Kulbir Kaur, Sub Inspector, has submitted that the Investigating Agency has concluded the investigation and has submitted a final report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. It is further submitted that the petitioner/husband should appear before the trial Court to facilitate early conclusion of the trial and the state has initiated extradition proceedings after the completion of investigation.

Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner/husband and the complainant/wife are citizens of U.S.A. and from July 1994 till March 2009, they stayed there, furthermore by now the marriage has dissolved and divorce has been accepted by the parties, this Court is of the view that whether the offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC is made out or not is a moot question. So far as offence u/s 323 IPC is concerned, it is a non-cognizable and a bailable offence. Furthermore, in the present case, investigation has already concluded and the trial is to commence in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh. Therefore, custodial interrogation is not called for. Thus, the present petition is accepted. It is ordered that in case the petitioner appears before the trial Court, on or before 10.3.2012, he shall be released on bail. To allay apprehension of the complainant, liberty is also granted to her to urge before the trial Court that necessary safeguards be taken so that the petitioner is not able to flee from the country. However, any observation made herein, shall not be construed as final expression on the merits of the case.