AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.B. Garg, J.
Ranjit Singh, petitioner No. 2 husband has described himself as a resident of House No. 31, Modern Colony, Jalandhar whereas Harjot Singh, petitioner No. 1 is a resident of Karnal and Akash Deep Singh petitioner No. 3 is a resident of Chandigarh. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 claim to be the cousins of petitioner No. 2 Ranjit Singh. They have moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the proceedings under Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated against them by means of D.D.R. No. 46 dated 24.10.1993 registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh.
Briefly, Ranjit Singh, petitioner No. 2, was married to Dilraj Kaur and this marriage was solemnized on 7.2.1992 at Adampur District Jalandhar. The parties could not proceed well. Dilraj Kaur, the wife, moved a petition under Section 12(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of marriage and a decree of annulment was passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh on 7.5.1993. ex parte. Smt. Dilraj Kaur, the wife, lodged a report at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, on 24.10.1993 which is reproduced as under :
"To
The SHO
P.S. Sector 36,
Chandigarh,
Sir,
I, Dilraj Kaur, with my mother was having a walk in Sector 35A around 9.3010.00 p.m. An ambassador No. PB08D0349 tried to hit me twice, when the car tried to hit for the second time, I rapidly jumped on the footpath and I could clearly recognize the driver Mr. Raju Oberoi and Mr. Ranjit Singh and Mr. Gangadeep Singh sitting on the front seat. Two more persons were sitting in the back seat whom I could not recognize out of shock and my mother tried to raise alarm but they immediately disappeared. I may kindly mention here that Mr. Ranjit Singh, is my exhusband and this car belongs to my inlaws. The marriage has been declared annulled by the Court and we have already applied for dowry articles returned through the police one month ago. This is one of the reason that they are trying to harass and threaten us with such tactics. Kindly note the addresses :
(1) Mr. Raju Oberoi c/o 555 Sec. 16, Chandigarh.
(2) Ranjit Singh Bhalla 31, Modern Colony, Jal.
(3) Gagan Deep Singh, 3107, Sector 35, Chandigarh.
It is also stated that my father Wg. Cdr. in Air force is posted in Delhi and our life is in danger because there is no male member in the house. You are requested to take the suitable action in this matter.
Thanking yours,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/ Dilraj.
Ranjit Singh, the husband and his two companions, have moved this Court challenging the aforesaid report and the notice issued by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh dated 17.12.1993, Annexure P8, requiring them to furnish the two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ each and also a personal bond in the like amount.
The important pleas taken up in the present petition are briefly reproduced as under:
"(a) That the DDR No. 46, dated 24.10.1993 is delayed.
(b) That the said DDR was got recorded falsely after hatching a conspiracy against the petitioners and no incident took place on 23.10.1993 as alleged.
(c) That the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. have been launched against the petitioners after a lapse of a period of about two months.
(d) That there is no other incident except the false, solitary incident contained in the DDR, which does not constitute or invite the proceedings under Sections 107/151 of Cr.P.C.
(e) That already the petitioners have been challaned under Section 279/506 I.P.C. i.e., the substantive offence of 506 IPC.
(f) That neither the complainant Smt. Dilraj Kaur nor the petitioners 1 and 2 are the residents of the Chandigarh. Smt. Dilraj Kaur is the resident of Delhi whereas the petitioner No. 1 is a resident of Karnal and petitioner No. 2, the husband of Smt. Dilraj Kaur, is a permanent resident of Jalandhar.
(g) That the S.D.M., Chandigarh is not conducting the proceedings judiciously and fairly and is misconducting the proceedings against the provisions of Cr.P.C. as well as Evidence Act."
On behalf of the petitioners, it has been pointed out that Dilraj Kaur herself moved the petition for annulment of the marriage because the parents of Dilraj Kaur were not happy and they wanted that the marriage should be broken on one pretext or the other.
On behalf of the petitioners, it has been specifically pointed out that Ranjit Singh has never resided in Sector 35A Chandigarh and the present proceedings were initiated only with the object of coercing him and his other two close cousins. Besides this, a case has been registered against the petitioners for the substantive offence under Section 279 read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, The fact regarding a challan for the substantive offence has not been repudiated by Dilraj Kaur in her affidavit dated 24.10.1993.
The D.D.R. No. 46 in question was recorded on 24.10.1993 whereas the present petition was moved after a lapse of six months, i.e. on 31.5.1994. There has been no untoward occurrence inter se the parties after this alleged incident on 24.10.1993. In Ramnarain Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 1972 Criminal Law Journal 1444, it was observed that where a long period has elapsed during the course of which nothing untoward happened, the inference may be drawn that the danger of breach of peace has vanished. This proposition of law could not be contradicted. Here also in the present case, there was alleged rash driving by one of the petitioners and a case for substantive offence has been registered and Ajmer Singh v. The State of Haryana and another, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 341 is attracted. The conclusion is that the present petition moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure succeeds and the impugned order and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh are hereby quashed.