Law of Crimes I: Penal Code

Case Comment: Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State of Punjab and Anr.

AIR 2011

Submitted By

Prabhnoor Guliani

Division: E Roll no.: 18010223095 Course: BA. LLB of

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune.

In

January, 2020

Under the guidance of

Ms. Meera Matthew and Mr. Vikram Singh

Assistant Professors
 CERTIFICATE
The project titled “Case Comment: Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State of Punjab and Anr. AIR
2011” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Law of Crimes Paper I: Indian Penal
Code as part of Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance
of Ms. Meera Matthew and Mr. Vikram Singh from December, 2020 to April, 2020.

The Research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree. The material
borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research paper has been duly
acknowledged.

I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

Signature of the Candidate

Date:
 INDEX

Contents
Summary of the case........................................................................................................................4
Issues/Arguments.............................................................................................................................5
Judgement........................................................................................................................................6
Analysis...........................................................................................................................................7
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
 Summary of the case
 This case is related to sorry state of affairs of a woman who filed a criminal complaint
against her own husband alleging that they had obtained the decree of divorce through
fraudulent means without realizing that making such an assertion in the Court room will
make her an accomplice in the crime as well1. Also, the appeal raises a substantial
question of law as to whether the judgment and decree of a competent Civil Court can be
declared null and void in collateral proceedings, that too, criminal proceedings.

 The basis of arising of this case comes out when the couple got married in September
1998 in Jalandhar as per Sikh rites and rituals, they got a son out of that marriage named
Gurarjit Singh in 1999. The parties in the marriage decided to end their marriage due to
temperamental issues and therefore under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, they
decided to end their marriage on grounds of mutual consent. The problem appeared when
the Respondent no.2 filed a police complaint in Ludhiana against the appellant in 2009,
that even after getting the divorce they were still living together and thus the decree of
divorce was a sham. The allegations put forward by Respondent 2 were first seen as
baseless and were seen to be causing harassment to the appellant. Later the Respondent 2
filed a civil suit seeking the judgement that the decree of divorce was null and void and
therefore had been obtained by fraud. Respondent no. 2 also filed application dated
17.12.2009 under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for grant of custody and guardianship
of the minor child Gurarjit Singh and the same is pending for consideration before the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana. Respondent no. 2 on 11.2.2010 also
lodged an FIR under Sections 406,2 498-A3, 3764, 120-B5 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
against the appellant and his mother and sister. The High Court vide impugned judgment

1
Section 107, Indian Penal Code
2
States punishment for committing criminal breach of trust. The section states as, “Whoever commits criminal
breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both.”
3
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative
of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
4
States that if a police officer, or a public servant or any other person commits the offence of Rape, he shall be
liable to punishment under the purview of this section. The term of imprisonment in these cases shall not be less
than 10 years and this may also be extended to life imprisonment.
5
Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
 and order dated 9.8.2010 dismissed the application filed by the appellant. Hence, this
appeal.

 Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior lawyer showing up for the appealing party has
presented that the High Court blundered in dismissing the use of the litigant under
Section 482 Cr.P.C, as none of the reliefs guaranteed by the respondent no. 2 could be
engaged by the criminal court while managing the objection; the protest itself is time
banished the Magistrate Court couldn't take discernment thereof.
 Respondent 2 alleged that she had not been treated well throughout the marriage by the
appellant and had to take shelter in her parents’ house where all the belongings of the
wife and the dowry articles were all kept. The reliefs needed were custody of the minor
child, right of residence and restoration of dowry articles.

 Since she is an abettor to the crime herself she has disentitled herself to any equitable
relief. The approach of a court of law in matrimonial matters should be "much more
constructive, affirmative and productive rather than abstract, theoretical or doctrinaire”. It
is merely a misgiving that the courts are not concerned and obligated to save the sanctity
of the institution of marriage. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 1304, this
Court held that mere filing the petition for divorce by mutual consent does not authorize
the court to make a decree for divorce.

 Withdrawal of consent can be unilateral prior to second motion. It is beyond our

imagination as under what circumstances a subordinate criminal court can sit in appeal
against the judgment and order of the superior Civil Court, having a different territorial
jurisdiction. Interest of justice warrants quashing of the same. 

Issues

 Whether the judgement and degree of the competent civil court be declared null and void
in collateral proceedings that too which are criminal in nature?
 Whether reliefs sought in the complaint can be granted by the criminal court so long as
the judgment and decree of the Civil Court?
 Whether it is permissible for a party to treat the judgment and order as null and void
without getting it set aside from the competent court?
  If the mother of the minor is also an accomplice in the fraudulent divorce, does she get
the custody of the minor?

Judgement
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment and final order dated 9.8.2010 in Criminal Misc.
No. M-29339 of 2009 (O&M) passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, by
which the High Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 482of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as `Cr.P.C') for quashing the complaint
No. 87/02/09 dated 12.6.2009 filed by respondent no. 2 under  Section 12of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the `Act 2005').

"It is therefore prayed that the respondent no.1 be directed to hand over the custody of the minor
child Gurarjit Singh Grewal forthwith. It is also prayed that the respondent no.1 be directed to
pay to her a sum of Rs.15, 000/- per month by way of rent of the premises to be hired by her at
Ludhiana for her residence. It is also prayed that all the respondents be directed to restore to
her all the dowry articles as detailed in Annexure A to C or in the alternative they be directed to
pay to her a sum of Rs.22,95,000/- as the price of the dowry articles. Affidavit attached."

This judgement brings about the three kinds of relief that need to be sought by Respondent 2 that
is (a) Custody of her minor son (b) Right of residence (c) Restoration of dowry articles. It would
have been a normal settlement proposition of divorce but since this is a misrepresentation on the
part of the wife upon the competent authority then it cannot be sustained and in the eyes of the
law fraud unravels everything. Fraud and justice never dwell together.

"It is well settled principle of law that even a void order is required to be set aside by a
competent Court of law, inasmuch as an order may be void in respect of one person but may be
valid in respect of another. A void order is necessarily not non-est. An order cannot be declared
to be void in collateral proceedings and that too in the absence of the authorities who were the
authors thereof." (Emphasis added)  Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Sneh
Gupta vs Devi Sarup & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194”

From the issues and the arguments posed in the case it is clear that even if a decree is declared as
void ab initio declaration needs to be obtained by the aggrieved person in a competent court.
A person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum as explained by the legal maxim
"allegans suam turpetudinem non est audiendus". No one should have an advantage from his
own wrong (commondum ex injuria sua memo habere debet). No action arises from an immoral
cause (ex turpi cause non oritur action). Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action
(volenti non fit injuria). The statements/allegations made by the respondent no.2 patently and
latently involve her in the alleged fraud committed upon the court. Thus, she made herself
disentitled for any equitable relief.”

Analysis

In this case the decree of divorce obtained by the couple does not give an edge to the respondent
as she also becomes an accomplice to the offence where it was obtained through fraud. The wife
gives her reasons for obtaining divorce via mutual consent but still lived with her husband in the
same home as they wanted to settle in USA so it was planned that after getting a divorce the
husband would move to USA, marry a US citizen and then divorce her and then re-marry the
respondent. They also went to a lot of places during this period and all of a sudden her son was
being taken away from her when she was legally entitled to his custody along with other reliefs.

Taking into account the above mentioned, we are of the considered sentiment that allowing the
Magistrate to continue further with the objection under the arrangements of the Act 2005 isn't
perfect and in consonance with the declaration of separation which despite everything subsists
and accordingly, the procedure adds up to maltreatment of the procedure of the court. Without a
doubt, for suppress an objection, the court needs to take its substance all over worth and in the
event that the equivalent reveals an offense, the court for the most part doesn't meddle with the
equivalent. In any case, in the setting of the truthful framework of this case, allowing the court to
continue with the grievance would be tragedy of equity. The intrigue succeeds and is permitted.
The denounced judgment and request dated 9.8.2010 is therefore saved. Request documented by
the appealing party under Section 482 Cr.P.C.6 is permitted. Objection No. 87/02/09 pending
before the Magistrate, Jalandhar and all requests passed in that are suppressed. Prior to leaving
behind the case, we explain that respondent no.2 will be qualified for proceed with her different
6
Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
cases and the court concerned may continue as per law without being affected by the perceptions
made thus. The said perceptions have been made uniquely to choose the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. recorded by the appealing party.

Conclusion
In Conclusion, the court made the right decision where the laws were appropriately followed
even though it led to the loss of the respondent where she was one of the victims of the family
crisis but she definitely did have a role in the criminal offence. What she went through was
basically domestic violence but the laws considered her side to be void ab initio as she herself
caused damaged to her life and thus it was a classic case of volenti non fit injuria or hurt through
consent and later it was through her statements she came across as a criminal offender herself
therefore the abettor.7

The only place where the Court’s decision went wrong was when the court should not have so
easily given up on the reconciliation of the couple merely on the ground that there is no
reconciliation for them and there is no possible way that the couple can live together in harmony.
Therefore it was a mere misgiving and it is one of the duties of the Court to save the sanctity of
the marriage. The interregnum holding up period from 6 to year and a half is clearly planned to
give time and chance to the gatherings to think about their turn and look for guidance from
family and friends. Right now one of the gatherings may have a doubt and change the psyche not
to continue with the appeal. The court must be fulfilled about the bona fides and the assent of the
gatherings for the explanation that court gets locale to make an announcement for separate from
just on common assent at the hour of enquiry. In this manner, withdrawal of assent can be one-
sided before second movement. 8

7
Faguna Kantha Nath vs State of Assam AIR 1959
8
Smt. Sureshta Devi vs Om Prakash, AIR 1992