Mukundakam Sharma JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 13.12.2007 passed by a learned single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-40020 of 2007 dismissing an application praying for quashing FIR No. 141 dated 30.5.2006 under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code")
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
Appellant No. 1 is the husband of the respondent No. 3. The other appellants are his parents.
Respondent No. 3 was married with one Ravinder Singh Jaspal in Canada in the year 1995. A son was born out of the said wedlock on or about 25.8.1996. As disputes and differences arose between them, respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit for grant of divorce on or about 30.9.1998. In the said proceedings, a decree for divorce was granted by a Canadian court on or about 22.4.2000.
Almost immediately thereafter, that is, on 21.5.2000, respondent No. 3 and appellant No. 1 got married at Jalandhar as per Sikh rites.
After a month's stay in India, respondent No. 3 left for Canada. On or about 6.3.2001, respondent No. 3 gave birth to a female child in Canada. Appellant No. 1 went to Canada on the sponsorship of respondent No. 3 on 14.4.2001. He got an employment there as a driver.
Disputes and differences arose between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent No. 3 in the year 2003. Allegedly, she left with all her belongings and withdrew Canadian $ 24500 from the joint account of the parties.
It is neither denied nor disputed that she had been contacting lawyers with regard to her matrimonial disputes and even cancelled the sponsorship of the application for grant of permanent residence of appellant No. 1 as also his family.
In those circumstances, Appellant No. 1 initiated a divorce proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, inter alia, stating:
On 28th August, 2003, when the applicant had gone to work, the respondent left the matrimonial home to live with her parents. She took with her all her personal effects, jewelleries and withdrew $23,000.00 from their joint bank account.
The respondent is threatening to hurt herself and get the applicant involved with the police to deport him from Canada.
The applicant is afraid and believes, that if she is allowed to come back to his home, she may hurt herself or may hurt the applicant.
The respondent wants the applicant to be deported and may do anything to cause physical violence.
Inderpal Singh is the father of the respondent, Paramjit Kaur and the father in law of the applicant.
Surinder Singh is the brother of the respondent, Paramjit Kaur and the brother-in-law of the applicant.
However, differences between them were sorted out and respondent No. 3 affirmed an affidavit on or about 30.9.2003 admitting her mistake, stating:
On September 20, 2003, I decided to return to the house of my husband without advising him that I was coming back. My husband is reluctant and fearful to have me back in the house. I have promised my husband that I would not harass him any more and that I am very sorry for all the problems tha........