SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gurminder Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 26 February, 2018


Criminal Misc. No. M- 6389 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 26, 2018

Gurminder Singh …..Petitioner


State of Punjab and another ….Respondents


Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. J.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.


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


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
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
04-03-2018 02:51:11 :::

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