204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 6389 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 26, 2018
Gurminder Singh …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
***
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 12 dated 06.08.2016 under Sections 406/498A
IPC registered at Police Station Women, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
As per the allegations in the FIR, marriage between the
petitioner and the complainant was solemnised on 18.04.2015. It is
alleged that the complainant was subjected to ill-treatment and
harassment on account of insufficient dowry. The petitioner and the
complainant started residing at Zirakpur in separate premises from
01.10.2015. However, on 28.10.2015 the complainant was subjected to
physical abuse by the petitioner and since then she is residing with her
parents. A complaint in this regard was submitted on 21.01.2016
though the FIR was registered on 06.08.2016.
1 of 4
04-03-2018 02:51:09 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 6389 of 2017 (OM) -2-
It is submitted that the above said FIR has been registered
due to temperamental differences between the parties. An effort was
even made by the petitioner to cohabit with the complainant separately
away from his family members at Zirakpur but the complainant left the
matrimonial home. It is submitted that incorrect averments of demand
of dowry etc. have been made in the FIR. The complainant was never
subjected to ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of the petitioner
or his family members on account of insufficient dowry etc. Moreover,
there is nothing on record to substantiate the averments regarding
physical abuse levelled in the FIR. It is further submitted that the matter
was amicably resolved between the parties on 08/09.03.2017
(Annexure P-3/T). However, respondent No. 2 backed out of the
compromise while wrongly stating that the matter was resolved under
pressure of the police authorities. It is vehemently argued that the
petitioner is a resident of Sirsa in Harayna. He has no connection
whatsoever with the police authorities at Mohali where the settlement
has been arrived at. It is clear that respondent No. 2 no longer wishes to
adhere to the terms and conditions of the settlement a mere excuse is
being raised in this respect. The petitioner, it is stated, has joined
investigation and undertakes to hand over any articles of respondent
No. 2, which may still be lying with him. He also undertakes not to
abuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed. It is, thus,
prayed that this petition be allowed.
2 of 4
04-03-2018 02:51:11 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 6389 of 2017 (OM) -3-
Learned counsel for the complainant opposes this petition
while submitting that the complainant was subjected to severe ill-
treatment and harassment, however, it is not denied that there is no
medical evidence at this stage to substantiate the allegations of physical
abuse meted out to the complainant. It is reiterated that compromise
dated 09.03.2017 was arrived at due to the pressure of the police
authorities and was not arrived at out of the free will of the
complainant.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI
Lakhwinder Singh, verifies that the petitioner has since joined
investigation though recovery is still to be effected from him. It is
specifically denied that there was any kind of pressure by the police
authorities upon any of the parties for a settlement. The petitioner is not
reported to be involved in any other criminal case.
This Court in Prit Pal Singh versus State of Punjab and
another 2014 (5) RCR (Criminal) 771 to say that non recovery of
certain articles by itself cannot be a ground for not affording the
concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. No useful purpose
shall be solved by taking the petitioner in custody.
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.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted
above but without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is
Criminal Misc. No. M- 6389 of 2017 (OM) -4-
3 of 4
04-03-2018 02:51:11 :::
considered just and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently,
order dated 28.02.2017 is made absolute.
(Lisa Gill)
February 26, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
04-03-2018 02:51:11 :::