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