IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1497 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(Crl) 4802 of 2007]

PRITAM SINGH SIDHU .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.  Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The second respondent is the wife of one Gurjant Singh.  The appellant is the

brother-in-law of  the said Gurjant Singh.   The second respondent filed a complaint

under Section 406 and 498A of IPC in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Abohar against her husband (A1), father-in-law (A2), mother-in-law (A3), sister-in-law

(A4) and the husband of the sister-in-law (A5) who is the appellant herein.  The only

reference to accused No.5 (appellant) in the said complaint reads thus:

“One T.V., one fridge, one washing machine were handed

over  to  the  accused  No.5  who  is  the  brother-in-law  of  the

complainant as a trust property.”

In the pre-summons statement recorded by the learned Magistrate, there is no reference

to appellant.  Learned Magistrate by  order  dated  26.4.2004 dismissed the complaint  

........2.

- 2 -

against A-4 and ordered summons to A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5.  Feeling aggrieved, the said

four accused  filed  a petition under Section  482  before  the  High Court.   However,

subsequently, A-1,  A-2 and A-3 did not press the said petition and the petition was

rejected insofar as the said accused.  Thus the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that

came up for consideration before the learned single Judge of the High Court was only by

A5 - appellant herein.  Learned single Judge by order dated 10.5.2007 dismissed the

petition by the following order:

  “The effort of  re-conciliation has failed.   Though

the wife is willing to join the company of the petitioner, but he

is adamant. In my view, no ground for quashing is made out.

Dismissed.”

We find  that  the  High  Court  has  totally  misdirected  itself  and  proceeded  on  the

erroneous assumption that the petitioner before it was the husband of the complainant

and that he had refused to take his wife back though she was willing to join him. But the

petitioner in Section 482 petition was not the husband, but his brother-in-law.  This has

led to a wrong order being passed.    

3. We have examined the entire complaint and the statement  

.........3.

- 3 -

given  by  the  complainant.   There  is  no  reference to the appellant that will link him in

regard to any offence under Sections 406 or 498A IPC.   

4. We, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order of the High Court and

quash the proceedings insofar as appellant (A5) is concerned.

  ...........................J.    ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    ...........................J. September 19, 2008.           ( LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA )