In a noteworthy ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, under the guidance of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, quashed an FIR against Kamaljeet Singh and others, who were charged under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court's decision hinged on the absence of prior sanction from the District Magistrate, a critical procedural requirement as mandated by Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Background
The case, documented as CRM-M-40527-2023, began with accusations from Surjan Singh against Kamaljeet Singh, who was engaged to marry his daughter, Kuldeest Kaur. Surjan Singh alleged that after wedding preparations were underway and invitations were sent out, the accused demanded a dowry of Rs. 25 lakhs as a condition for the marriage. Subsequently, FIR No. 16 was lodged on February 18, 2023, at the Chhajli Police Station in District Sangrur, Punjab.
Key Legal Issues
The main argument put forth by the petitioners was that the prosecution lacked the required prior sanction from the District Magistrate, making the FIR and subsequent legal actions invalid. They cited legal precedents, including the case of 'State, CBI versus Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr, 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 947,' which clarifies that initiating criminal proceedings, including the registration of an FIR, requires prior sanction.
Court's Observations and Decision
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi highlighted the legal necessity for prior sanction under Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, emphasizing that no prosecution could commence without it. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in 'State, CBI versus Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr,' he noted that the term "prosecution" includes the initiation of criminal proceedings, such as the registration of an FIR.
The court observed:
“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.”
Justice Bedi reinforced this position by referencing other judgments, such as 'State of Haryana versus Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 504,' which outlines the conditions under which legal proceedings can be quashed, particularly when a legal barrier prevents the continuation of prosecution.
Ultimately, the court quashed FIR No. 16 dated February 18, 2023, along with all related proceedings, including the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC. dated June 12, 2023.
Legal Representation
Kamaljeet Singh and the other petitioners were represented by Advocate Mr. Kanwal Goyal, while the State of Punjab was represented by Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Amicus Curiae, Mr. Aarav Gupta, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, likely the complainant in the case.
AdvoTalks: Talk to Lawyer https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
