SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Harinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 November, 2017

Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM) 1


Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : November 01, 2017

Harinder Singh …..Petitioner


State of Punjab ….Respondent


Present: Mr. R.S. Bal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate
for the complainant.


The petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in

FIR No. 0063 dated 17.05.2016 under Sections 497, 498A, 406, 323,

324, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station City, District Gurdaspur.

The petitioner is the husband of the complainant. As per the

allegations in the FIR, marriage between the petitioner and the

complainant was solemnised on 15.09.2002. The petitioner as well as

the complainant are teachers serving the State of Punjab. It is averred

that right from the very beginning the petitioner used to physically

abuse the complainant on the pretext of dowry. Dowry articles – Air

Conditioner, Yamaha motorcycle, refrigerator, washing machine etc.

including gold ornaments were given at the time of marriage. The

petitioner, however, physically abused the complainant, demanding a

1 of 5
08-11-2017 22:14:55 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM) 2

big car in dowry. It is further stated that the complainant was turned

out of her matrimonial home on various occasions but due to

intervention of respectable and influential persons, she was re-settled in

her matrimonial home. Two children were born out of this wedlock.

The petitioner’s behaviour still did not improve. It is stated that the

petitioner returned home on 23.04.2016 at about 4.00 p.m. and

threatened the complainant that in case she did not bring a car from her

parents, he would remarry. When the complainant protested, he took

out a sickle lying in the house and inflicted an injury on her left ring

finger. In the meantime, the petitioner’s friend, ‘Gill’ resident of Gopal

Nagar, arrived. He picked up a baseball bat lying in the house and hit

her on the waist on the petitioner’s asking and direction. The

complainant fell down but she was still assaulted by the petitioner and

his friend. When she raised hue and cry, both of them proceeded to the

terrace of the house. The complainant rang up her father, who took her

to the Civil Hospital where she received treatment. It is further stated

that the petitioner maintained illicit relations with one Gurleen Kaur

and when the complainant protested, he would throw her out of the

matrimonial home. Efforts were again made for rapprochement but

proved futile. On the basis of said allegations, the above said FIR was


Interim relief was afforded to the petitioner in this case at

the time of issuance of notice of motion. Parties were directed to appear

before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. A

2 of 5
08-11-2017 22:14:56 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM) 3

compromise was arrived at between the parties on 23.08.2016. It was

agreed that the petitioner would take the complainant alongwith their

two minor children to the matrimonial home at Gurdaspur on

08.11.2016. It is to be noted that both the petitioner and the

complainant are working as ETT teachers at Gurdaspur. However, the

petitioner instead of taking his wife and her children to the matrimonial

home, issued a legal notice to the complainant stating that certain

articles including `5 lakhs, original stamp papers of an agreement of a

plot, original sale deed of a house and original documents of plot with

PUDA, original academic certificate of the petitioner and certain gold

ornaments be returned to him and only thereafter she would be

rehabilitated in the matrimonial home. An attempt for reconciliation

was made yet again. The matter was again placed before the Mediation

and Conciliation Centre of this Court. However, mediation between the

parties was not successful. It is noted by this Court on 06.03.2017 that

the petitioner expressed a desire to live at Mukerian with the

complainant and her children instead of Gurdaspur where both of them

were working. The matter was again adjourned to enable the parties to

reconcile their difference. The petitioner undertook to deposit the entire

arrears of maintenance due, as assessed in the proceedings under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, the entire arrears were not deposited.

Learned counsel for the State on 13.07.2017 informed that

though the petitioner had joined investigation, no recovery was

effected. It was vehemently contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner before this Court on 13.07.2017, that it was a simple

3 of 5
08-11-2017 22:14:56 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM) 4

marriage and no article was received but when the petitioner, present in

Court was pointedly asked, the petitioner admitted that a motorcycle

was received at the time of marriage. The matter was adjourned on

request of learned counsel for the petitioner seeking one more

opportunity to the petitioner to return all dowry articles, which may be

lying with him. The said dowry articles and motorcycle were

admittedly not returned.

The petitioner thereafter on 07.09.2017 submitted that to

show his bona fides he would submit FDRs to the tune of `1,50,000/-

in favour of his two minor children with the complainant as

guardian/nominee by the next date of hearing i.e. 26.10.2017. The said

FDRs as above were not furnished and the matter was adjourned for

today on request of learned counsel for the petitioner.

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions

from his client who is present in Court, submits that his client is ready

and willing to deposit only a sum of `66,000/- in favour of the minor

children and no more, though he is willing to offer a post dated cheque

of another sum of `40,000 in favour of his son.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is apparent that the petitioner is trying to misuse the

process of law. Interim order was granted in his favour. The petitioner

agreed to reconcile the matter on various occasions but has backed out

thereafter. He has sought numerous adjournments on one pretext or the

other. The conduct of the petitioner clearly lacks bona fides and dis-

entitles him from the concession of anticipatory bail.

4 of 5
08-11-2017 22:14:56 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 22021 of 2016 (OM) 5

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,

this petition is dismissed.

It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein

above are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no

bearing on the trial.

(Lisa Gill)
November 01, 2017 Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5
08-11-2017 22:14:56 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation