CRM No.M-41762 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M- 41762 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: March 08 , 2018.
Darshan Singh …… PETITIONER (s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Gaurav Partap S.Pathania, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
*****
LISA GILL, J.
The petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR
No.17 dated 10.03.2016 under Sections 498A/406/494/120B IPC, registered at
Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot.
It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this
case. The complainant, in fact, had left the matrimonial home in the year 2009.
Marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the complainant in the year
2007. The present FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive after an
explained delay. Moreover, the matter was compromised between the parties on
21.09.2009 as reflected in the document attached as Annexure P2 (Talaqnama)
1 of 3
11-03-2018 05:17:44 :::
CRM No.M-41762 of 2016
-2-
with this petition whereby it was decided between the parties that they would
dissolve their marriage. A sum of `1,00,000/- was handed over to the
complainant at that time, though it is not denied that there is no substantive
proof of the said amount being handed over to the complainant. The
complainant, it is alleged, is living with another person. Reference is made to a
document (Annexure P3) purportedly issued by the Gram Panchayat, village
Azizpur. The petitioner, it is submitted, has joined investigation. It is thus
prayed that this petition be allowed.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition while
refuting the averments that any divorce was ever sought or granted to the parties.
To the contrary the petitioner, it is submitted, has solemnized second marriage
without seeking divorce from the complainant and children are also born out of
this illegal alliance. Allegations of the complainant having remarried or living
with any other person are denied being incorrect. It is stated that the complainant
is living in her parental home. Her mother has recently passed away. Moreover
despite various opportunities, the petitioner did not come forward for effective
mediation. He has not come present despite a specific direction by this Court
neither have the litigation/travelling expenses of `12,000/- been handed over to
respondent No.2 as directed by this Court. It is thus prayed that this petition be
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Devinder
Singh, submits that the petitioner has joined investigation, however no recovery
was effected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, all dowry
2 of 3
11-03-2018 05:17:45 :::
CRM No.M-41762 of 2016
-3-
articles stood returned in September, 2009 itself.
Be that as it may, conduct of the petitioner before this Court is to be
deprecated. Litigation/travelling expenses as directed by this Court vide orders
12.09.2017 and 08.12.2017 have not been deposited till date. Specific directions
were issued to the petitioner to remain present before this Court. Adjournments
were sought on one pretext or the other on behalf of the petitioner. However, he
did not come present in deference to the said orders. Ultimately, interim bail
granted in favour of the petitioner way-back in November 2016 was vacated. At
this juncture, it is to be noted that the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda while
deciding the petitioner’s bail application on 13.07.2016 noticed similar conduct
of the petitioner wherein he did not appear before the said court. It is relevant to
note that in the present proceedings the petitioner joined investigation after
being granted indulgence thrice by this Court. It is clear that the petitioner had
sought to delay the proceedings to enjoy the interim relief.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, especially
the conduct of the petitioner as well as non-payment of the litigation/travelling
expenses to respondent No.2, no ground is made out for grant of concession of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
( LISA GILL )
March 08 , 2018. JUDGE
‘om’
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
11-03-2018 05:17:45 :::