Pritam Singh Sidhu Vs.
State of Punjab & ANR.  INSC 1602 (19 September 2008)
JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1497 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(Crl) 4802 of
2007] PRITAM SINGH SIDHU .......APPELLANT(S) Versus
granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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- 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
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.
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.
therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order of the High Court and quash
the proceedings insofar as appellant (A5) is concerned.
( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
Pages: 1 2