Sanchit Gupta vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 8 December, 2017

Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 1


Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 8.12.2017

Sanchit Gupta
Union Territory, Chandigarh


Present: Mr. A.K. Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Gautam Dutt, Additional Public Prosecutor,
Union Territory, Chandigarh.

Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate,
for the complainant.


1. This criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No. 49 dated 03.06.2017 under Sections 406/498A of IPC

at Police Station Women, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2. In brief the facts are, that FIR No. 49 dated 03.06.2017 under

Sections 406/498A of IPC was registered at Police Station Women, Sector

17, Chandigarh, at the behest of Sh. Anoop Kumar alleging that the

marriage was solemnized between the petitioner Sanchit Gupta and Palak

Jain, daughter of the complainant on 26. 11.2015. The matrimonial alliance

was finalized after the parties had been introduced to each other through a

1 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:23 :::
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 2

matrimonial website The families met and it was informed

that Sanchit Gupta, the petitioner, has a M.D.S. degree and has a

government job in the Haryana government. Apart from that, they were

informed that he is in owner of a four-bedroom flat, a shop in upscale area

of South Delhi, where he proposed to open a clinic. The complainant’s party

was informed that Sanchit Gupta also has a ranch in United States of

America. At the time of the wedding, an amount of approximately `60 lakhs

was spent which would include dinner and stay at a five-star hotel, namely

JW Marriott. Demand for car was made and a sum of `10 Lacs was handed

over on 17.11.2015. Despite a lavish wedding, the daughter of the

complainant was not treated with love or affection on account of bringing

inadequate dowry. Moreover, apart from ill treating Palak Jain, it came to

the knowledge that a fraud had been played upon the daughter in so far as

Sanchit Gupta did not have a government job, neither did he own any ranch

in USA, and he was in an extramarital relationship.

3. After the registration of the FIR, apprehending arrest the

petitioner approached the Additional District and Sessions at Chandigarh for

grant of pre-arrest bail. It was alleged that all information was supplied to

the complainant and his daughter regarding the qualifications of the

petitioner at the time of the marriage, however, the complainant’s daughter

left the matrimonial home of her own accord, which compelled the

petitioner to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

which is still pending adjudication. It was contended that the petitioner

would be entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail.

2 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 3

4. The matter was investigated and the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor contended that the petitioner with dishonest intention had created

his profile on a matrimonial site giving incorrect particulars, which had been

removed from the site, after the dispute arose between the parties. In this

background, the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, declined to grant

of pre-arrest bail. Aggrieved the instant petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends

that the petitioner is always ready and willing to settle the matrimonial

dispute. This fact has been controverted by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the complainant, who argues that the petitioner herein is an

unreliable person having played a fraud upon the complainant and his

daughter by putting incorrect matrimonial details on the website. It is also

contended that the petitioner herein mentally and physically harassed Palak

Jain on account of inadequate dowry and should not be entitled to grant of

anticipatory bail.

6. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

7. At the very outset, when the matter was came up for hearing

before this court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there had

been talks of mediation before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh,

which failed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

would still be ready to settle the dispute amicably and to show his bona fide

would deposit a sum of `20 lakhs with the Registry of this court within a

period of 15 days. It was also submitted that certain dowry articles had been

recovered by the Women Cell and the list of the same is attached as

3 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 4

Annexure P/4. Notice of motion was issued for 10.10.2017 with a direction

to the petitioner to deposit a sum of `20 lakhs with the Registry of this court

within a period of 15 days while staying the arrest of the petitioner. The

parties were also called in court to explore the possibility of an amicable

resolution to the dispute by referring them to the Mediation and Conciliation

Centre of this court. The case was taken up on 10.10.2017 and counsel for

the Union Territory, Chandigarh, informed this court that the petitioner had

not deposited `20 lakhs in terms of the order dated 28.08.2017; nor had he

joined the investigation, as had been directed. Appearance was also caused

on behalf of the complainant and counsel informed that bills worth `70

lakhs had been submitted to the Investigating Officer, who had verified the


8. The parties were sent for mediation which was not fruitful. The

question before this court would be, whether the petitioner herein is entitled

to grant of anticipatory bail after the same had been declined by the

Additional District Session Judge, Chandigarh?

9. At the time of seeking notice of motion and stay of arrest, a

categoric statement had been made that the petitioner would be ready to

settle the dispute amicably. Mediation failed and even this court made every

attempt to get the parties to settle the disputes. Learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the Union Territory, Chandigarh, categorically submits that

bills have been verified, as presented by the complainant, which would

reflect that sufficient amount had been spent upon the marriage. There are

also some cash transactions which have not been taken into account. It is

4 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 5

also submitted that the items that have been recovered are nothing more than

perfumes, make-up items, personal clothing, few clothes, shawls which in

fact are not of much value, while submitting that the major items pertaining

to gold have yet to be recovered. It is also confirmed that the petitioner had

posted incorrect details about his qualification and job description and assets

at the time when he had got himself registered with the matrimonial website

and he does not have necessary qualifications, or the job as claimed. The

fact of marriage having been solemnized at JW Marriot, which is a five-star

hotel in Chandigarh, has also been verified, which would be indicative that

the complainant had spent a sufficient amount at the time of marriage of his

daughter. Even before this court stay had been obtained by submitting that

20 lakhs would be deposited in the registry within a period of 15 days to

show his bona fide, however, the same was deposited after a period of 6


10. This court is conscious of the fact that court should not deny

bail only on the account that recoveries have yet to be effected, as in the

instant case. The offence under Section 498A is non-bailable and if court is

prima facie of the view that the petitioner has obtained concession of pre-

arrest bail by misleading the court, the court would have no hesitation in

vacating the same. It has now become a trend of making an offer of

settlement at the very 1st instance, to become uncooperative immediately

thereafter, as has been noticed by this court in the present case itself. It is

well-settled law that grant of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief

which is to be extended only when the applicant/accused is able to make out

5 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 6

a case of exceptional hardship in his favour. The petitioner put up false

information about himself on the website, as has been investigated by the

police and, therefore, in the totality of the circumstances that have been

narrated above, this court is not inclined to allow this petition.

11. Dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be

construed as an opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be decided on

the basis of the evidence produced before the trial court.

12. The Registry is directed to refund the amount of `20 lakhs to

the petitioner deposited by him in this Court.

prem JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No

6 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:25 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *