SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gurveer Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 February, 2018


Criminal Misc. No. M- 12419 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : February 19, 2018

Gurveer Singh …..Petitioner

State of Punjab ….Respondent


Present: Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant.


Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No. 44 dated 05.03.2016 under Section 498A IPC (Section

406 IPC added later) registered at Police Station Kharar, District SAS


It is submitted that the above said FIR was registered due to

temperamental differences between the parties. The complainant is a highly

educated person. She is presently serving as Lecturer at Ryat Bahra

University. She could not adjust with the petitioner, who is also a qualified

person having attained MBA degree. It is contended that false allegations of

demand of dowry are levelled against the petitioner, who tried his best to

make their marriage work. It is further submitted that the marriage in

question was a simple marriage. No dowry was received at the time of

marriage and neither was any demand for the same ever raised. Moreover,

the petitioner has joined investigation. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be


1 of 3
04-03-2018 01:51:40 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 12419 of 2016 (OM) -2-

Learned counsel for the complainant while opposing this

petition submits that doubtlessly the complainant is a highly educated

person and it is due to this reason she made all efforts to ensure peace and

harmony in the marriage. The complainant, it is submitted, is a writer

having various articles and books to her credit. There is no question of

lodging a false FIR by her. It is only when she was driven to the wall that

she was constrained to take this step. About `10 lakhs was spent by the

complainant’s parents at the time of marriage, which was solemnised at

Dawat Hotel in Mohali on 20.12.2014. The complainant and her husband

lived at Phagwara for about one year in rented premises. Thereafter, the

petitioner was posted at Chandigarh. The petitioner refused to live with the

complainant any longer and stated that until and unless a sum of `10 lakhs

was handed over as dowry, matrimonial ties would not be resumed. The

entire jewellery except a gold chain, two bangles and a pair of earrings were

taken by the accused persons. It is further submitted that during mediation

proceedings before this Court, the petitioner only with a view to prolong the

proceedings extended an offer for taking premises on rent so that

matrimonial ties could be resumed. However, no such effort was made by

him and he specifically declared to the complainant that he would think

about resumption of matrimonial ties only if a sum of `5 lakhs was handed

over to him. (This fact is denied by learned counsel for the petitioner while

submitting that premises were identified at Sunny Enclave, Kharar, for

which a sum of `11,000/- has been deposited at an initial stage by the

petitioner). It is further submitted that the interim maintenance fixed in the

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is also not being deposited by the

2 of 3
04-03-2018 01:51:42 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 12419 of 2016 (OM) -3-

petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the petitioner

has falsely stated that he was jobless having lost his job due to litigation

with the complainant whereas he is gainfully employed. It is, thus, prayed

that this petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Karamjit

Kaur, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and only some of

the articles in question including gold jewellery have been recovered. The

petitioner has not handed over all the articles.

There are specific allegations of ill-treatment and harassment

meted out to the complainant by the petitioner as well and clear cut demands

of dowry. Keeping in view the specific allegations against the petitioner and

his subsequent conduct as well, I do not find any ground whatsoever to

afford the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Lisa Gill)
February 19, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
04-03-2018 01:51:42 :::

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