Sumit Singla vs State Of Punjab on 7 March, 2018

Criminal Misc. No. M- 17212 of 2017 (OM) 1


Criminal Misc. No. M- 17212 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : March 07, 2018

Sumit Singla …..Petitioner

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents


Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. R.S. Rawat, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.

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

petitioner in FIR No. 10 dated 08.04.2017 under Section 406/498A IPC

registered at Police Station Women, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

this case. Marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was

solemnised on 14.04.2010 and a daughter was born out of this wedlock on

11.02.2011. Allegations of ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of the

petitioner as well as all the family members are raised. It is stated that

demand of dowry was raised. The entire jewellery of the complainant was

kept in the custody of her mother-in-law and thereafter taken away by both

her sisters-in-law. Allegations of physical abuse are raised. It is stated that

the health of the complainant’s father-in-law deteriorated as he was detected

to be suffering from Cancer in the year 2014. Ultimately, the complainant

alongwith her husband and daughter started living separately in rented

accommodation in May 2014. Various allegations have been raised against

1 of 4
10-03-2018 23:33:37 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 17212 of 2017 (OM) 2

the petitioner and the in-laws family.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner’s sisters-in-law have

been found innocent during investigation. Contentions on behalf of the

petitioner, while issuing notice of motion, were noted as under:-

Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that earlier
FIR No. 121 dated 5.4.2011 under
Sections 148, 149, 427, 323
of the Indian Penal Code (in short “
IPC”) was registered in
Police Station, Parav Ambala Cantt. wherein father of the
complainant namely Vijay Kumar alleged harassment to his
daughter on account of demand of dowry but later he gave a
duly sworn affidavit dated 17.9.2011 (Annexure P-3) (Colly)
that allegations made in the complaint as well as statement
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
Cr.P.C.”) are the result of ill advice. The alleged victim Seema
made a complaint in June 2014 but later she filed an affidavit
dated 22.7.2014 (Annexure P-7) deposing that on the
instigation and influence of her family members and friends and
in a fit of anger, she filed a false complaint against the husband
and in-laws family members in Women Cell, Mohali on
29.6.2014. Further argued that as per allegations in the FIR,
jewellery of the complainant had been taken away by her
sisters-in-law but during enquiry, sisters-in-law of the
complainant were found innocent and they are not the accused
in the case. The minor child aged about six years, born out of
the wedlock is residing with the petitioner. Counsel would
submit that in view of repeated allegations raised by the
complainant and her family members, it may not be possible for
the parties to live together but the petitioner is ready to have an
amicable settlement on payment of reasonable amount towards
permanent alimony and maintenance etc., in case the
complainant so agrees.”

2 of 4
10-03-2018 23:33:38 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 17212 of 2017 (OM) 3

This matter was placed before the Mediation and Conciliation

Centre of this Court. However, as per report dated 02/03.11.2017,

respondent No. 2 – complainant as well as her father adopted an adamant

attitude and refused to participate in the mediation proceedings. It is noticed

by this Court on 02.02.2018 that respondent No. 2 expressed her willingness

to part ways with the petitioner, in case, a sum of `20 lakh is handed over to

her in respect to all her claims – past, present and future in respect to

alimony, maintenance qua her as well as maintenance towards the minor

child reported to be in her custody. The petitioner on the said date, however,

offered a sum of `18 lakhs. This case was adjourned in order to enable the

parties to reconcile the said difference in the amount.

Today, the petitioner as well as the complainant alongwith her

father, duly identified by their counsel, are present in Court. Respondent No.

2 submits that she does not wish to retain the custody of the minor daughter

and seeks to hand over the same to the petitioner as it is not possible for her

to bring up a child in a befitting manner on her own. However, she is not

ready and willing to accept anything less than `20 lakhs as full and final

settlement of all her claims qua the petitioner towards alimony, maintenance


The petitioner present in Court has expressed his readiness and

willingness to look after his minor daughter. It is submitted that in fact the

custody of the child was earlier with the petitioner and she was taken

forcibly by respondent No. 2 on 23.05.2017 after passing of interim order

dated 16.05.2017 in the present case. DDR No. GD 66 dated 23.05.2017

was registered where the matter was compromised between the parties at

that stage. Ultimately FIR No. 69 dated 26.05.2017 was registered at Sector

3 of 4
10-03-2018 23:33:38 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 17212 of 2017 (OM) 4

19, Chandigarh against the complainant side.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

It is apparent that the petitioner has expressed his readiness and

willingness to amicably resolve the dispute with respondent No. 2.

However, as noted above no settlement is possible, at this stage.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Balvinder Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation. He is

not reported to be involved in any other criminal case. 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 in the

Court, if released on bail. No useful purpose shall be solved by taking the

petitioner in custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above but

without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just

and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated 16.05.2017

is made absolute.

It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein above

are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the


(Lisa Gill)
March 07, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
10-03-2018 23:33:38 :::

Leave a Comment

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