201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No. M- 1142 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : February 21, 2018
Hardeep Kumar …..Petitioner
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
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.
February 21, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
25-02-2018 00:13:24 :::