201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 1142 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : February 21, 2018

Hardeep Kumar …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.

***
LISA GILL, J.

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

petitioner in FIR No. 198 dated 10.12.2015 under Section 406/498A IPC

registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

this case. No demand of dowry etc. was ever raised by the petitioner or any

of his family members. In fact, the complainant wished for a separate

residence and did not want to reside in the joint family. Accordingly, to

maintain peace and harmony, the kitchen of the complainant and the

petitioner was separated but still she could not adjust and wanted a separate

residence from the joint family. However, the same was not possible.

Moreover, it is wrongly mentioned that any mis-information was given to

the complainant at the time of marriage. The petitioner was 37 years old at

the time of marriage and the complainant was 34. It was made clear, at

the very outset, that the petitioner, who had earlier gone to England

1 of 3
25-02-2018 00:13:23 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 1142 of 2016 (OM) -2-

in the year 2000, had been deported in August 2012 and he could not get

permanent residency there. Allegations of demand of dowry etc. in the FIR

or of ill-treatment, harassment meted out to the complainant are absolutely

incorrect. The petitioner had expressed his desire to amicably resolve the

matter with the complainant. The matter was referred to the Mediation and

Conciliation Centre of this Court. However, mediation was unsuccessful.

The petitioner, it is submitted, has joined investigation and undertakes to

face proceedings. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition

while submitting that there are specific allegations of ill-treatment and

harassment to the complainant. It is, however, not denied that mediation

between the parties has failed. It is affirmed that a sum of `30,000/- to be

deposited by the petitioner vide order dated 13.01.2016 in favour of the

complainant, has been received by her.

It is noticed that as per the report of the Mediator, the matter

was postponed thrice at request of the complainant but she did not turn up

even for a single session, after extension of time granted for mediation by

this Court. The complainant requested for the matter to be sent back for

adjudication.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Balwant

Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and out of the list

of five articles, three have been recovered.

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.

2 of 3
25-02-2018 00:13:24 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 1142 of 2016 (OM) -3-

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above but

without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just

and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated 13.01.2016

is made absolute.

(Lisa Gill)
February 21, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
25-02-2018 00:13:24 :::