SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jagat Ram Sharma And Anr vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 6 March, 2018

CRM No.M-38942 of 2015


Criminal Misc. No.M- 38942 of 2015(OM)
Date of Decision: March 06 , 2018.

Jagat Ram Sharma and another …… PETITIONER (s)


U.T. Chandigarh and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan Senior Advocate with
Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Harparteek S.Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. J.S.Toor, APP, U.T.

Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Anshika Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


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

petitioners in FIR No.9 dated 13.10.2015 under Sections 406/498A IPC,

registered at Police Station Women, Chandigarh.

Petitioners are the parents-in-law of the complainant

As per allegations in the FIR, the complainant married the son of the

petitioners on 05.10.2008 at Community Centre, Sector 19A, Chandigarh. It is

1 of 6
11-03-2018 01:54:01 :::
CRM No.M-38942 of 2015

stated that at the time of marriage sufficient gifts items were given to all the

accused persons i.e., the present petitioners, their son (husband of the

complainant), married sister-in-law and brother-in-law (devar) of the

complainant. The complainant’s husband was projected to be settled permanently

in Australia, working in a Multi-National Company, earning a handsome income.

The complainant proceeded to Australia on 25.10.2008 after the marriage on

05.10.2008, but on arrival came to know that her husband was jobless, not

earning anything. His services had been terminated. The petitioners’ son

declared to the complainant that the only purpose for marrying the complainant

was that she would be able to earn a handsome amount in Australia as she was a

qualified nurse. Various allegations of ill-treatment, harassment and

victimization are raised against the petitioners’ son while the couple was in

Australia. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, it is mentioned in para

5 of the FIR that when the complainant came to India in the month of March,

2008 and stayed here for three months, her life was made miserable by the

present petitioners. She was taunted for not bringing valuable items as per their

demands and status. Thereafter, allegations have been raised against the

petitioners that when the complainant was expecting a child, they insisted upon

an abortion. Petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law), who had come to Australia did not

help out the complainant during her pregnancy and was of no aid to her. The

complainant was taunted by the accused for not bringing sufficient gifts on the

birth of the child on 24.06.2013 in Australia.

It is alleged that on 27.11.2013 the complainant alongwith her

husband and son came to India for two months. It is further alleged that the

2 of 6
11-03-2018 01:54:02 :::
CRM No.M-38942 of 2015

complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home in India on 16.12.2013.

The complainant rejoined her husband in Australia thereafter. Complaints were

made against the conduct of the petitioners’ son by the complainant before the

police authorities in Australia. It is alleged that the complainant’s husband

deserted the complainant and their child on 25.07.2014. The complainant

alongwith the minor child came back to India on 19.01.2015. The present

petitioners are alleged to have threatened the complainant to forcibly take away

the minor child from her. The complainant, it is further stated, was not allowed

to operate the locker, which is in the joint name of the complainant as well as the

petitioners’ son in the State Bank of India, Sector 17, NRI Branch, Chandigarh.

On these allegations, the present FIR was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present

petitioners, who are senior citizens, have been falsely implicated in this case due

to matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband i.e., the

petitioners’ son. A perusal of the FIR, it is submitted, does not reveal any

specific allegations against the present petitioners constituting an offence

punishable under Sections 406/498A IPC. It is submitted that an ex-parte

divorce has been granted in favour of the petitioners’ son on 26.04.2016 which is

under challenge by the complainant. A sum of 600 Australian Dollars is being

paid by the petitioners’ son qua maintenance for the minor child. The locker in

question has been operated under the orders of this Court in the present petition

(order dated 02.03.2016) in the presence of the Investigating Officer as well as

the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court. The entire jewellery which

was lying in the said locker is in the custody of respondent No.2. Report dated

3 of 6
11-03-2018 01:54:02 :::
CRM No.M-38942 of 2015

11.04.2016 by the Local Commissioner is on record. It is further submitted that

petitioner No.1 had suffered from cancer in the year 2002. He had received

treatment and is in remission. It is further submitted that on 08.11.2017 an offer

had been made before this Court that the petitioners would furnish a sum of

`10,00,000/- in the form of FDRs in favour of the minor child and respondent

No.2 without prejudice to their rights and without the said amount counting

towards any kind of maintenance etc. towards the said child or respondent No.2

with a rider that the said amount be not released till the child attains majority.

However, the petitioners have not been able to garner the said amount, but they

can manage to deposit a sum of `5,00,000/- by way of an FDR in favour of the

minor child within four weeks from today without prejudice to their rights. It is

submitted that the petitioners have joined investigation and they undertake to

face the proceedings and not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if

afforded to them. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this

petition while submitting that there are specific and serious allegations against

the present petitioners for ill-treating the complainant while she was in India and

thereafter, suggesting abortion of the child and not even taking adequate care of

the complainant when she was expecting. Moreover, the petitioners are aiding

their son in remaining a fugitive in law. A false complaint was got registered by

petitioner No.2 against the complainant. Reference is made to DDR No.33 dated

04.07.2015, which was ultimately withdrawn.

It is however not denied that there is no medical evidence, at this

stage, to indicate any kind of physical abuse of the complainant by the present

4 of 6
11-03-2018 01:54:02 :::
CRM No.M-38942 of 2015

petitioners. It is further not denied that the locker in question has since been

operated under orders of this Court and entire contents thereof are in the custody

of the complainant. A sum of 600 Australian Dollars is admittedly being

deposited by the petitioners’ son towards maintenance of the minor child. It is

not in dispute that interim relief was afforded to the petitioners on 07.12.2015.

Efforts were made to enable the parties to amicably resolve the matter but a

settlement did not fructify. The petitioners did not abuse the interim relief in the


Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Ram Kumar,

verifies that the petitioners have joined investigation and are not involved in any

other criminal case. It is further submitted that the final report in this case is

likely to be presented within four weeks.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioners are

likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing

true facts before the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is

considered just and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated

07.12.2015 is made absolute subject to deposit of a sum of `5,00,000/- in the

form of FDRs in favour of the minor child – Aryan Sharma, not to be released till

the child attains majority, within five weeks from today before the court where

the decree of divorce has been challenged by the complainant without prejudice

to their rights and without the said amount counting towards any kind of

maintenance etc. towards the said child.

5 of 6
11-03-2018 01:54:02 :::
CRM No.M-38942 of 2015

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall

be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

March 06 , 2018. JUDGE

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

6 of 6
11-03-2018 01:54:02 :::

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