SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajeet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 15 February, 2018

CRM-M-19542 of 2017 (OM) 1

CRM-M-19542 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision:15.02.2018
Ajeet Singh
State of Haryana and another


Present: Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar. AAG., Haryana

Mr.K.K.Saini, Advocate
for respondent no.2.



Petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR

No.70 dated 08.05.2017, under Sections 323, 377, 384, 498-A, 506 IPC,

registered at Police Station Women Police Station, Faridabad.

It is submitted that marriage between the petitioner and the

complainant was solemnized in the year 1994. Two children were born out

of this wedlock. Their daughter is major and the son aged about 17 ½ years.

It is submitted that abovesaid FIR has been registered due to temperamental

differences as well as certain differences which arose after the death of the

petitioner’s father in January 2016. As per the allegations in the FIR, the

petitioner was entrapped and entangled in a web cast by one Anupama Joshi

in the year 2007. She was a frequent visitor to their house. Allegations of

blackmail by the said lady are raised. It is stated in the FIR that the petitioner

1 of 3
04-03-2018 07:52:52 :::
CRM-M-19542 of 2017 (OM) 2

was also threatened by Anupama Joshi otherwise she would implicate him in

a rape case. A demand of `50 lakhs was raised by her. The petitioner

pressurized the complainant to arrange this amount from her relatives. The

allegations attracting the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC are also

levelled in the FIR. It is stated that expenses of the complainant and the

children are not being borne by the petitioner and he is giving constant

threats to their life.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner and

the complainant have been living separately from the year 2010. The first

complaint was submitted by the complainant on 22.09.2016, thereafter on

26.12.2016 and then on 06.02.2017. All the said complaints were inquired

into by an IPS Officer and the allegations against the petitioner were found

to be incorrect. Moreover, in the said applications, no allegation attracting

the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC was ever raised by the

complainant. Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(Annexure P-2), was filed by the petitioner on 11.07.2016. Thereafter, the

present FIR has been registered on 08.05.2017 on an application submitted

by the complainant on 06.05.2017. Allegations attracting Section 377 IPC

were raised for the first time in this complaint. It is contended that the

petitioner is taking care of all the needs and requirements of the complainant

as well as of both his children and shall continue to do so. The complainant

and both the children are admittedly living in the matrimonial home.

Moreover, he has joined investigation pursuant to the interim order passed

by this Court on 03.07.2017. He undertakes to face the proceedings. It is

thus prayed that this petition be allowed.

2 of 3
04-03-2018 07:52:54 :::
CRM-M-19542 of 2017 (OM) 3

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this

application, but is unable to deny that marriage between the parties took

place in the year 1994. The complainant and the children are admittedly

living in the matrimonial home as on date. There is no serious dispute

regarding the averments that the needs and requirements of the complainant

and the children have been looked after by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Saheed

Ahmed, affirms and verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and

is not involved in any other criminal case. Mediation between the parties has


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 03.07.2017, is made


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.

15.02.2018 Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable:Yes/No

3 of 3
04-03-2018 07:52:54 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation