VERDICTUM.

IN
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110631

CRM-M-40527-2023 (O & M)

::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-40527-2023 (O&M)
Reserved on :23.08.2024
Date of Pronouncement:28. 08.2024

Kamaljeet Singh and ors.

... Petitioners

Versus
State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present: Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Aarav Gupta, Advocate, (Amicus Curiae),

for respondent No.2.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is

for quashing of FIR No.16 dated 18.02.2023 under Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station Chhajli, District

Sangrur (Annexure P-1) as well as the consequential proceedings arising

therefrom including the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. dated

12.06.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the registration of the

FIR are that the complainant-Surjan Singh son of Mangat Singh got

registered the aforementioned FIR with the allegations that he had got

fixed the marriage of his daughter-Kuldeep Kaur with accused-petitioner

1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 29-08-2024 16:51:50 :::
 VERDICTUM.IN
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110631

CRM-M-40527-2023 (O & M)

::2::

No.1 Kamaljeet Singh for 07.12.2022. The accused forced him to book

the California Palace at Dirba. The marriage cards had been printed and

all the planning had taken place including distribution of cards. However,

the accused persons got greedy and demanded Rs.25 lacs as dowry as a

condition precedent for the marriage. A Panchayat was convened and

respectables reached the house of the accused persons where they again

reiterated their demand of dowry of Rs.25 lacs, upon which, they would

perform the marriage of Kamaljeet Singh with his daughter-Kuldeep Kaur.

Therefore, the accused had committed the offence in question for which

they were liable to be prosecuted. A copy of the FIR is attached as

Annexure P-1 to the petition.

3. Based on the investigation conducted, the report under

Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented and the copy of the same is attached

as Annexure P-2 to the petition.

4. The aforementioned FIR (Annexure P-1) and the report under

Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2) are under challenge in the present

petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms

of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the

State of Punjab, the prosecution itself could not be instituted against any

person under the Act without the previous sanction of the District

Magistrate, etc. Initiation of prosecution meant that the FIR could not be

registered and therefore, there was no question of consequential

2 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 29-08-2024 16:51:51 :::
 VERDICTUM.IN
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110631

CRM-M-40527-2023 (O & M)

::3::

investigation. As there was an express bar to the very institution of

proceedings, therefore, the FIR (Annexure P-1) and the final report

(Annexure P-2) were liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the

judgments in ‘State, CBI versus Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr., 2006(4)

RCR (Criminal) 947, Deepak Kumar and Anr. Versus The State of

Punjab and anr. (in Crl. Misc. No.-5304-M of 1988 decided on

13.01.1989, Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur versus Mrs. Harjinder Kaur (in

Crl.Misc. No.8580-M of 1988 decided on 25.09.1989), Angrez Singh and

ors. Versus State of Punjab and ors. (in Crl. Misc. No.8021-M of 1990

decided on 12.04.1991), Nirmal Kaur versus Balbir Singh and ors. (in

CRR No.272 of 1991 decided on 08.12.1991), Komal Jain versus Amit

Jain and ors. (in CRR-3000 of 2010 decided on 04.08.2011) and State of

Haryana versus Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604’.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2 has not

disputed the legal position as argued by the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while

referring to the reply dated 30.01.2024 contends that as the offence was

established from the allegations levelled in the FIR, the present petition

was liable to be dismissed.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Before proceeding further, it would relevant to examine the

provisions of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as

3 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 29-08-2024 16:51:51 :::
 VERDICTUM.IN
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110631

CRM-M-40527-2023 (O & M)

::4::

applicable to the State of Punjab and the same is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

“8-A. Institution of proceedings.--No prosecution shall be

instituted against any person in respect of any offence
committed under this Act without the previous sanction of the
District Magistrate or of such officer as the State
Government may by special or general order appoint in this
behalf."

10. In ‘State, CBI versus Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr.,

2007(2) Crimes 91’, one of the questions which had arisen was as to when

did a prosecution begin. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term

‘prosecution’ would include institution or commencement of a criminal

proceeding and would also include an inquiry and an investigation. The

relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-

15.A declaration is required to be filed in the form prescribed

therefor. Time and manner of payment of tax arrears is
provided for in Section 90. Section 91 provides for immunity
from prosecution and imposition of penalty in certain cases.
Section 95 provides for exceptions as regards the
applicability of the Scheme, Clause (iii) whereof, which is
relevant for our purpose, reads as under :

“95. The provisions of this Section shall not apply

-
… … ...
(iii) to any person in respect of whom prosecution
for any offence punishable under Chapter IX or
Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the

4 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 29-08-2024 16:51:51 :::
 VERDICTUM.IN
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110631

CRM-M-40527-2023 (O & M)

::5::

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of

1973), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Terrorists
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
(28 of 1987), the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (49 of 1988), or for the purpose of
enforcement of any civil liability has been
instituted on or before the filing of the declaration
or such person has been convicted of any such
offence punishable under any such enactment.

The principal questions which arise for consideration

are-

(i) Whether the Scheme is applicable in relation to

a public servant ?

(ii) When does a prosecution start ?;

(iii) Whether the offences enumerated under Section

95(iii) are excluded from immunity in terms of Section
91 of the Act ?

XXXX XXXX XXXX

25. It is in the aforementioned context, interpretation of the

word ‘prosecution’ assumes significance. The term
‘prosecution’ would include institution or commencement of a
criminal proceeding. It may include also an inquiry or
investigation. The terms ‘prosecution’ and ‘cognizance’ are
not interchangeable. They carry different meanings.
Different statutes provide for grant of sanction at different
stages.

5 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 29-08-2024 16:51:51 :::
 VERDICTUM.IN
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110631

CRM-M-40527-2023 (O & M)

::6::

11. The judgments in ‘State, CBI versus Sashi

Balasubramanian & Anr., Deepak Kumar and Anr. Versus The State of

Punjab and anr. Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur versus Mrs. Harjinder Kaur,

Angrez Singh and ors. Versus State of Punjab and ors., Nirmal Kaur

versus Balbir Singh and ors. Komal Jain versus Amit Jain and ors. and

State of Haryana versus Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) are to the effect that the

proceedings are liable to be quashed if there is no prior sanction under

Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the State

of Punjab obtained from the District Magistrate.

12. As to the circumstances in which proceedings can be

quashed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana versus Ch.

Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604’, has held as under:-

“(1) where the allegations made in the First Information

Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused;

6 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 29-08-2024 16:51:51 :::
 VERDICTUM.IN
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110631

CRM-M-40527-2023 (O & M)

::7::

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so

absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the

provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge”.

13. A perusal of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

as applicable to the State of Punjab alongwith the various judgments of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court would go to show that no

prosecution can be instituted against any person in respect of any offence

committed under the Act without the previous sanction of the District

Magistrate.

7 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 29-08-2024 16:51:51 :::
 VERDICTUM.IN
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110631

CRM-M-40527-2023 (O & M)

::8::

14. As in the instant case, the FIR has been registered without

any prior sanction of the concerned officer, it is apparent that there is an

express legal bar engrafted in provisions of the Act to the institution and

continuation of proceedings.

15. In view of the above, I find considerable merit in the present

petition. The same is allowed and the FIR No.16 dated 18.02.2023 under

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station

Chhajli, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1), the final report under Section

173 (2) Cr.P.C. dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-2) as well as all the

consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)

JUDGE

August 28, 2024

sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No

Whether reportable:- Yes/No

8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 29-08-2024 16:51:51 :::