CRM No.M-10742 of 2017
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M- 10742 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: April 3 , 2018.
Beenu Mehta …… PETITIONER (s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Divjyot S.Sandhu, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
*****
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?
*****
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No.286 dated 28.12.2016 under Sections 498A/406 IPC
registered at Police Station City Kapurthala.
It is submitted that the abovesaid FIR has been registered due to
temperamental differences between the petitioner and his wife, the complainant.
As per allegations in the FIR, marriage between the petitioner and the
complainant was solemnized on 13.12.2015 through an advertisement in the
1 of 4
15-04-2018 12:52:13 :::
CRM No.M-10742 of 2017
-2-
matrimonial column of the Punjab Kesri newspaper. It was alleged that a sum of
`15,00,000/- was incurred on the marriage. Allegations of ill-treatment and
harassment at the hands of the petitioner and other members of the in-laws
family were raised by the complainant. It is stated that ultimately complaints
dated 30.06.2016 and 09.08.2016 were submitted by the complainant to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala. A compromise was effected
between the parties on 31.08.2016 and the complainant was taken to the
matrimonial home. It is alleged that the complainant was forcibly given some
poisonous substance on 06.10.2016 by the petitioner and other members of her
in-laws family. The complainant disclosed it to her father and on 08.10.2016,
she was brought to her parental home.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant
could not adjust in the matrimonial home at Ferozepur and sought a separate
residence at Mohali however, the same was not possible for the petitioner. The
petitioner even filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
and is still ready and willing to resume cohabitation with the complainant.
Reference is made to a compromise (Annexure P1) which was arrived at
between the parties on 08.10.2016 in the presence of various respectable persons
of the area. It is contended that there is no medical evidence on record to
indicate administration of any poisonous substance to the complainant and
perusal of compromise dated 08.10.2016 also does not reveal any such incident.
It is submitted that all articles belonging to the complainant have since been
handed back. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner in order to
show his bonafides and to counter the allegations that the gold articles have not
2 of 4
15-04-2018 12:52:14 :::
CRM No.M-10742 of 2017
-3-
been returned, is ready and willing to deposit a sum of `4,00,000/- before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala within a period of four weeks,
without prejudice to his rights subject to the ultimate decision of the
trial/investigation. It is 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. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be
allowed.
Learned counsel for the complainant and the State have opposed
this petition while submitting that specific allegations have been raised against
the petitioner. However, nothing has been pointed out to indicate the
administration of any poisonous substance to the complainant on 06.10.2016, at
this stage.
It is noticed that efforts were made to enable the parties to amicably
resolve their dispute, however mediation was unsuccessful. The petitioner has
expressed his desire to resume matrimonial ties. Learned counsel for respondent
No.2 was however not amenable to the same due to the unsavoury environment
created by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Harjinder
Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and is not involved in
any other criminal case. It is submitted that though certain articles have been
returned, the gold jewellery has not been returned. 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.
3 of 4
15-04-2018 12:52:14 :::
CRM No.M-10742 of 2017
-4-
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 03.04.2017 is made absolute
subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of `4,00,000/- by way of FDRs before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala within a period of four weeks
from today without prejudice to his rights.
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.
( LISA GILL )
April 3 , 2018. JUDGE
‘om’
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
15-04-2018 12:52:14 :::