Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM) 1
203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : November 01, 2017
Harinder Singh …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ….Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. R.S. Bal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
LISA GILL, J.
The petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in
FIR No. 0063 dated 17.05.2016 under Sections 497, 498A, 406, 323,
324, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station City, District Gurdaspur.
The petitioner is the husband of the complainant. As per the
allegations in the FIR, marriage between the petitioner and the
complainant was solemnised on 15.09.2002. The petitioner as well as
the complainant are teachers serving the State of Punjab. It is averred
that right from the very beginning the petitioner used to physically
abuse the complainant on the pretext of dowry. Dowry articles – Air
Conditioner, Yamaha motorcycle, refrigerator, washing machine etc.
including gold ornaments were given at the time of marriage. The
petitioner, however, physically abused the complainant, demanding a
1 of 5
08-11-2017 22:14:55 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM) 2
big car in dowry. It is further stated that the complainant was turned
out of her matrimonial home on various occasions but due to
intervention of respectable and influential persons, she was re-settled in
her matrimonial home. Two children were born out of this wedlock.
The petitioner’s behaviour still did not improve. It is stated that the
petitioner returned home on 23.04.2016 at about 4.00 p.m. and
threatened the complainant that in case she did not bring a car from her
parents, he would remarry. When the complainant protested, he took
out a sickle lying in the house and inflicted an injury on her left ring
finger. In the meantime, the petitioner’s friend, ‘Gill’ resident of Gopal
Nagar, arrived. He picked up a baseball bat lying in the house and hit
her on the waist on the petitioner’s asking and direction. The
complainant fell down but she was still assaulted by the petitioner and
his friend. When she raised hue and cry, both of them proceeded to the
terrace of the house. The complainant rang up her father, who took her
to the Civil Hospital where she received treatment. It is further stated
that the petitioner maintained illicit relations with one Gurleen Kaur
and when the complainant protested, he would throw her out of the
matrimonial home. Efforts were again made for rapprochement but
proved futile. On the basis of said allegations, the above said FIR was
registered.
Interim relief was afforded to the petitioner in this case at
the time of issuance of notice of motion. Parties were directed to appear
before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. A
2 of 5
08-11-2017 22:14:56 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM) 3
compromise was arrived at between the parties on 23.08.2016. It was
agreed that the petitioner would take the complainant alongwith their
two minor children to the matrimonial home at Gurdaspur on
08.11.2016. It is to be noted that both the petitioner and the
complainant are working as ETT teachers at Gurdaspur. However, the
petitioner instead of taking his wife and her children to the matrimonial
home, issued a legal notice to the complainant stating that certain
articles including `5 lakhs, original stamp papers of an agreement of a
plot, original sale deed of a house and original documents of plot with
PUDA, original academic certificate of the petitioner and certain gold
ornaments be returned to him and only thereafter she would be
rehabilitated in the matrimonial home. An attempt for reconciliation
was made yet again. The matter was again placed before the Mediation
and Conciliation Centre of this Court. However, mediation between the
parties was not successful. It is noted by this Court on 06.03.2017 that
the petitioner expressed a desire to live at Mukerian with the
complainant and her children instead of Gurdaspur where both of them
were working. The matter was again adjourned to enable the parties to
reconcile their difference. The petitioner undertook to deposit the entire
arrears of maintenance due, as assessed in the proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, the entire arrears were not deposited.
Learned counsel for the State on 13.07.2017 informed that
though the petitioner had joined investigation, no recovery was
effected. It was vehemently contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court on 13.07.2017, that it was a simple
3 of 5
08-11-2017 22:14:56 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM) 4
marriage and no article was received but when the petitioner, present in
Court was pointedly asked, the petitioner admitted that a motorcycle
was received at the time of marriage. The matter was adjourned on
request of learned counsel for the petitioner seeking one more
opportunity to the petitioner to return all dowry articles, which may be
lying with him. The said dowry articles and motorcycle were
admittedly not returned.
The petitioner thereafter on 07.09.2017 submitted that to
show his bona fides he would submit FDRs to the tune of `1,50,000/-
in favour of his two minor children with the complainant as
guardian/nominee by the next date of hearing i.e. 26.10.2017. The said
FDRs as above were not furnished and the matter was adjourned for
today on request of learned counsel for the petitioner.
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions
from his client who is present in Court, submits that his client is ready
and willing to deposit only a sum of `66,000/- in favour of the minor
children and no more, though he is willing to offer a post dated cheque
of another sum of `40,000 in favour of his son.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is apparent that the petitioner is trying to misuse the
process of law. Interim order was granted in his favour. The petitioner
agreed to reconcile the matter on various occasions but has backed out
thereafter. He has sought numerous adjournments on one pretext or the
other. The conduct of the petitioner clearly lacks bona fides and dis-
entitles him from the concession of anticipatory bail.
4 of 5
08-11-2017 22:14:56 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM) 5
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
this petition is dismissed.
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 trial.
(Lisa Gill)
November 01, 2017 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
08-11-2017 22:14:56 :::