202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 12419 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : February 19, 2018
Gurveer Singh …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ….Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 44 dated 05.03.2016 under Section 498A IPC (Section
406 IPC added later) registered at Police Station Kharar, District SAS
Nagar.
It is submitted that the above said FIR was registered due to
temperamental differences between the parties. The complainant is a highly
educated person. She is presently serving as Lecturer at Ryat Bahra
University. She could not adjust with the petitioner, who is also a qualified
person having attained MBA degree. It is contended that false allegations of
demand of dowry are levelled against the petitioner, who tried his best to
make their marriage work. It is further submitted that the marriage in
question was a simple marriage. No dowry was received at the time of
marriage and neither was any demand for the same ever raised. Moreover,
the petitioner has joined investigation. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be
allowed.
1 of 3
04-03-2018 01:51:40 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 12419 of 2016 (OM) -2-
Learned counsel for the complainant while opposing this
petition submits that doubtlessly the complainant is a highly educated
person and it is due to this reason she made all efforts to ensure peace and
harmony in the marriage. The complainant, it is submitted, is a writer
having various articles and books to her credit. There is no question of
lodging a false FIR by her. It is only when she was driven to the wall that
she was constrained to take this step. About `10 lakhs was spent by the
complainant’s parents at the time of marriage, which was solemnised at
Dawat Hotel in Mohali on 20.12.2014. The complainant and her husband
lived at Phagwara for about one year in rented premises. Thereafter, the
petitioner was posted at Chandigarh. The petitioner refused to live with the
complainant any longer and stated that until and unless a sum of `10 lakhs
was handed over as dowry, matrimonial ties would not be resumed. The
entire jewellery except a gold chain, two bangles and a pair of earrings were
taken by the accused persons. It is further submitted that during mediation
proceedings before this Court, the petitioner only with a view to prolong the
proceedings extended an offer for taking premises on rent so that
matrimonial ties could be resumed. However, no such effort was made by
him and he specifically declared to the complainant that he would think
about resumption of matrimonial ties only if a sum of `5 lakhs was handed
over to him. (This fact is denied by learned counsel for the petitioner while
submitting that premises were identified at Sunny Enclave, Kharar, for
which a sum of `11,000/- has been deposited at an initial stage by the
petitioner). It is further submitted that the interim maintenance fixed in the
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is also not being deposited by the
2 of 3
04-03-2018 01:51:42 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 12419 of 2016 (OM) -3-
petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the petitioner
has falsely stated that he was jobless having lost his job due to litigation
with the complainant whereas he is gainfully employed. It is, thus, prayed
that this petition be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Karamjit
Kaur, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and only some of
the articles in question including gold jewellery have been recovered. The
petitioner has not handed over all the articles.
There are specific allegations of ill-treatment and harassment
meted out to the complainant by the petitioner as well and clear cut demands
of dowry. Keeping in view the specific allegations against the petitioner and
his subsequent conduct as well, I do not find any ground whatsoever to
afford the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Lisa Gill)
February 19, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
04-03-2018 01:51:42 :::