IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-26879 of 2010
Date of decision: 04.03.2011
Sudesh Kumari and another….Petitioners
State of Punjab….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present: – Mr. Gaurav Mohunta,Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate, for the complainant.
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *****
ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL)
This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.293 dated 1.7.2010 under Sections 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Division No.5, Civil Line, Ludhiana City, District Ludhiana (Punjab).
This Court vide order dated 16.9.2010 has granted interim bail to the petitioners, who are in-laws of the complainant. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva,learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions of SI Dev Raj, who is present personally in Court, has stated that petitioners have joined the investigation in compliance of order dated 16.12.2010,however, they custodial interrogation is required to recover the dowry articles from their possession.
Mr. Namit Gautam, learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently argued that husband is not appearing before the Investigating Officer and is absconding, hence custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to get information about the whereabouts of the husband.
Learned counsel appearing for the parties have fairly stated that petition for dissolution of marriage is pending before the competent Court, which was filed subsequent to the filing of the FIR in question. In view of the pendency of the petition seeking dissolution of marriage, an appropriate order can be passed by the Court hearing the divorce petition under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for refund of the dowry articles, in the opinion of this Court custodial interrogation of the in-laws for recovery of dowry articles, which is still sub judice before the Civil Court is not required. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Order dated 16.9.2010 is made absolute, subject to the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, it is clarified that petitioners shall keep on co-operating in the investigation and if they fail to do so Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to get the bail cancelled.
March 04, 2011