Sandeep vs State Of Haryana on 20 December, 2017

CRM No.M-19610 of 2017


Criminal Misc. No.M- 19610 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: December 20 , 2017.

Sandeep …… PETITIONER (s)


State of Haryana …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay K.Saini, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
for the complainant.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No.318 dated 02.04.2017 under Sections 323/406/498A/506/34

IPC, registered at Police Station Hisar Civil Lines.

It is submitted that the complainant in this case remained in the

matrimonial home for a brief period. Even as per the allegations in the FIR, she

had left the matrimonial home in April 2013. Marriage between the petitioner

and the complainant was solemnized on 06.02.2013. The complainant had been

1 of 4
24-12-2017 08:35:01 :::
CRM No.M-19610 of 2017

living at her parental home since then. The petitioner, it is submitted, filed a

petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on

07.03.2014. It is thereafter that the present FIR was registered on 02.04.2017.

Therefore, it is argued that the aforementioned FIR is primarily a counter-blast to

the filing of the divorce petition by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the said divorce petition has been dismissed on 03.11.2017

and an appeal shall be preferred by the petitioner in the said matter. It is

vehemently urged that no demand of dowry was ever raised. The allegations in

the FIR are not substantiated. The complainant, it is submitted, had involved all

other family members including the parents-in-law and the brother-in-law (Jija)

of the petitioner. All other accused except the petitioner were found innocent by

the police during investigation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has

joined investigation and he undertakes to face the proceedings and not misuse the

concession of anticipatory bail, if afforded to him. It is submitted that a sum of

`30,000/- as litigation expenses has been handed over to the complainant in

compliance with order dated 30.05.2017. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition

be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition. It is

submitted that the FDRs attached as Annexure P5 with this petition do not form

part of the total amount spent on marriage. Moreover, the complainant had not

lodged the FIR in question at an earlier stage as she sought resumption of

matrimonial ties with the petitioner. Even as on date, she seeks resumption of

matrimonial ties and does not want to part ways with the petitioner in any

manner. It is further submitted that a list of dowry articles has been handed over

2 of 4
24-12-2017 08:35:02 :::
CRM No.M-19610 of 2017

to the police authorities on 17.12.2017 and gold articles are yet to be recovered

from the petitioner. It is therefore prayed that this petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Raj Rani,

verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation, though it is submitted that

recovery of the gold articles is yet to be effected.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

During the course of hearing, it was urged that as per the allegations

in the FIR, a sum of `10,00,000/- is alleged to have been spent on the marriage.

Out of the said amount, `5,00,000/- were in the form of two FDRs in favour of

the complainant (Annexure P5 collectively). The said FDRs are dated

02.02.2013 and 05.02.2013. Marriage was solemnized on 06.02.2013. The FDRs

are with the complainant. The petitioner offered to handover `5,00,000/-.

Thereafter, he offered to handover the entire amount of `10,00,000/-. It is

noticed that mediation between the parties has failed as the complainant seeks

resumption of matrimonial ties and no other kind of settlement whereas, the

petitioner is not ready to resume matrimonial ties with the complainant.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is

likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true

facts before the Court, if released on bail.

It has been held in Prit Pal Singh versus State of Punjab and

another 2014 (5) RCR (Criminal) 771 to say that non recovery of certain articles

cannot be a ground for not affording the concession of anticipatory bail to the


3 of 4
24-12-2017 08:35:02 :::
CRM No.M-19610 of 2017

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this

petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 30.05.2017 is made absolute.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall

be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

December 20 , 2017. JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
24-12-2017 08:35:02 :::

Leave a Comment

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