SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mandeep Kaur vs State Of Haryana on 8 March, 2018

CRM-M No.320 of 2017
Date of Decision: March 8th, 2018
Mandeep Kaur
State of Haryana


Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate
with Mr. M.S. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Amarpreet Kaur Sabharwal, Advocate
for the complainant.


Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of concession of anticipatory

bail in FIR No.229 dated 13.07.2016, registered at Police Station Sector-5,

District Panchkula, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 457, 380, 379

and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

It is the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner

that the allegations made in the FIR are all cooked up with an intention to

harass and humiliate the petitioner as she wanted to take divorce from the

son of complainant because of the maltreatment she had suffered at the

hands of her husband Jatinder Jagat, who is the son of complainant-Sunita

and a drug addict. He contends that out of the wedlock a daughter was born,

who is staying in Pinegrove School, which is quite an expensive school.

He contends that the allegations in the FIR that the petitioner has forged the

signatures of the complainant and in connivance with the co-accused,

grabbed `39,00,058/- and further committed theft of `82,000/-,
1 of 5
18-03-2018 03:04:31 :::
CRM-M No.320 of 2017 2

gold weighing about 23/24 tolas, silver anklets, two silver coins belonging

to the complainant and Alto Car bearing registration No.HR 03-172 by

preparing duplicate key, are totally false. As a matter of fact, because of the

matrimonial discord, petitioner did not want to continue with the

matrimonial relationship with the son of the complainant and, therefore,

wanted divorce by mutual consent, to which neither the complainant nor her

son agreed to but to the surprise of the petitioner, the complainant advanced

a sum of `39,00,000/- through RTGS for opening a Fixed Deposit in the

name of the granddaughter and also returned some dowry articles.

Faced with this situation, petitioner had no option but to file a petition on

12.05.2016 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for seeking a

decree of divorce. Out of the amount of `39,00,058/-, `34,00,000/- were

utilised for the purpose of preparing a Fixed Deposit for upbringing of the

daughter of the petitioner and `4,00,000/- were paid by cheque towards the

fee and other charges to Pinegrove School, where the daughter is studying.

He, therefore, contends that the allegations against the petitioner are totally

false and in any case, the petitioner has already joined investigation and,

therefore, the interim order passed by this Court on 11.01.2017 be

confirmed and the petitioner be granted bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as also learned

senior counsel for the complainant have asserted that the petitioner has

illegally transferred the amount from the account of the complainant without

her consent and rather has forged her signatures while filling in the form for

RTGS transfer into the account of the petitioner from that of the


Learned senior counsel for the complainant contends that it is

2 of 5
18-03-2018 03:04:32 :::
CRM-M No.320 of 2017 3

not merely the handiwork of the petitioner but there are other also, who are

co-accused involved in the said offence. On the complaint filed by the

petitioner, the said complaint was referred to the Economic Offences Wing,

Panchkula and thereafter, after the initial inquiry and on taking the opinion

of the Deputy District Attorney, FIR was registered. During investigation,

signatures of the petitioner and the complainant were obtained and sent to

the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal, Haryana, for

examination and on the basis of the report of the experts, it was concluded

that the signatures of the complainant were forged. It is submitted that the

offence has been committed by the petitioner as she is the beneficiary.

As a matter of fact, the petitioner has not come to the Court

with clean hands and has failed to bring to the notice of the Court

settlement/compromise dated 10.01.2017, where the petitioner had

conceded the fact relating to illegal transfer of `39,00,058/- from the

account of the complainant and had further stated that `4,00,000/- were paid

to Pinegrove School for the fee, boarding and lodging of the daughter of the

petitioner and the son of the complainant and it was assured that the amount

of `34,00,000/- would be transferred to the account of the complainant.

The said agreement was signed not only by the petitioner but her

father Sulakhan Singh and mother Inderjit Kaur. Petitioner thereafter

refused to honour the terms of the agreement and has till date, not returned

the amount agreed to, apart from returning the other stolen articles.

He has also pointed out that the petitioner is not cooperating with the

investigation and, therefore, the prayer made in the petition be not accepted.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

parties and with their assistance, have gone through the pleadings and the

3 of 5
18-03-2018 03:04:32 :::
CRM-M No.320 of 2017 4

documents on record.

As per the allegations against the petitioner, she had grabbed an

amount of `39,00,058/- illegally by forging the signatures of the

complainant as the signatures on the bank form has been found to be forged

and not of the complainant. Serious allegations have been made with regard

to having committed theft of about `82,000/-, 23/24 tolas of gold,

silver pajeb (anklets) and coins which are said to have been removed from

the almirah of the complainant.

The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

that it was out of care and concern for the minor granddaughter that the

complainant had transferred the amount of `39,00,058/- through RTGS for

opening a Fixed Deposit in the name of the petitioner’s daughter, cannot be

accepted as the allegations of harassment, maltreatment and torture in the

divorce petition are not only against the husband of the petitioner but also

against the complainant, who is the mother-in-law. Under these

circumstances, when the relations are so sore, as projected by her in the

divorce petition and further it is not in dispute that the articles, which have

been mentioned in the FIR, had been taken by the petitioner, which are said

to have been voluntarily given to her, cannot be accepted when she had

herself moved out of the matrimonial home.

It has been admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner had entered into a compromise dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure P-1)

and had also undertaken to return an amount of `34,00,000/- to the

complainant. On the last date of hearing i.e. 27.02.2018 when the Court was

not agreeing with the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner,

he had sought time to seek instructions with regard to the payment of

4 of 5
18-03-2018 03:04:32 :::
CRM-M No.320 of 2017 5

`34,00,000/- which admittedly was in account of the petitioner although

now freezed but she did not give her consent for the transfer of the said


Today also, despite a categoric question put by this Court, as to

whether the petitioner would return the amount of `34,00,000/- which she

admitted to return and is still lying in her account, the response of learned

senior counsel for the petitioner is in the negative as he has categorically

said that the petitioner is not ready to return the said amount.

The conduct of the petitioner, who admittedly has been unduly

enriched because of the transfer of `39,00,058/- into her account and,

thereafter, after having admitted the same to have been received, with the

FSL report confirming that it was not transferred by the complainant,

refusing to return the remaining amount of `34,00,000/-, speaks volumes

about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the said

offence and her intention.

The present petition, in these circumstances, stands dismissed.

Any observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing upon

the merits/proceedings pending in the FIR in any manner.

Puneet JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5
18-03-2018 03:04:32 :::

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
MyNation Times Magzine

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


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