IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-33263 of 2019
Date of Decision: 12.02.2020
Nikhil Gupta
…Petitioner (s)
Versus
State of Punjab another
…Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
Present:- Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Surya Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ruchika Sabharwal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate
for respondent no.2.
*****
HARI PAL VERMA, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.0023 dated 19.07.2019 under Sections 498-A IPC
and 406 IPC (added subsequently) registered at Police Station Women SAS
Nagar, Mohali.
The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of the
complainant – Priya, whose marriage was solemnized with the petitioner
on 13.11.2017. As per the FIR, the family of the complainant spent
1 of 4
13-02-2020 22:14:07 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-33263 of 2019 -2-
Rs.4,00,000/- on Roka ceremony whereas more than Rs.20,00,000/- was
spent at the time of marriage. The parents of the complainant had given
sufficient dowry articles including gold ornaments at the time of marriage,
as detailed in the FIR. However, after the marriage, the complainant came
to know that the petitioner was having an affair with an employee of his
own IT firm. When the complainant object to it, the petitioner promised
that he will not repeat it again. It caused mental harassment to the
complainant.
Vide order dated 10.09.2019, the matter was referred to the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and the parties were
directed to appear before the mediator. It has been reported by the mediator
that despite best efforts, the parties could not reach at an amicable
settlement. In these circumstances, the case has once again been listed
before this Court.
Vide order dated 29.10.2019, while adjourning the case for
today, the petitioner was directed to join investigation.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has argued that apart from the fact that offence under Section 406 IPC has
been added at a later stage, no recovery is required to be effected from the
petitioner, as while staying with the petitioner, the complainant has taken
away the jewellery. She has left the company of the petitioner in October,
2018 and thereafter, she has stayed with him from 17.02.2019 to
09.05.2019.
Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that all the
jewellery articles have not been recovered in the case. Moreover, the
2 of 4
13-02-2020 22:14:07 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-33263 of 2019 -3-
conduct of the petitioner is such that he does not deserve the relief of
anticipatory bail, as on 17.02.2019, when the grandmother of the petitioner
had expired, the complainant had joined the company of the petitioner and
stayed with him till 09.05.2019, on which date, the petitioner left the
company of the complainant. On 11.05.2019, the complainant submitted a
complaint to the SSP, but on 13.05.2019, she received a notice in the
divorce petition filed by the petitioner. In this manner, despite having filed
a divorce petition before the Court, the petitioner has established physical
relations with the complainant, which is not less than commission of rape
upon the complainant, as he has conveniently concealed this fact from the
complainant.
On the other hand, learned State counsel does not dispute the
fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation. She has submitted that
apart from other allegations, the complainant has submitted bills for 11 tola
of gold jewellery given in the marriage and out of this, 6 tola of gold
jewellery has been recovered from the petitioner and 5 tola of gold
jewellery is yet required to be recovered in the case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The matter was sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre
of this Court, but it could not be resolved. Even this Court has interacted
with the parties at sufficient length, but there is remote possibility of any
settlement. Considering the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation
and 6 tola of gold jewellery has been recovered from him, the present
petition is allowed and the interim order dated 29.10.2019 is made
absolute, however, that will be subject to the condition that the petitioner
3 of 4
13-02-2020 22:14:07 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-33263 of 2019 -4-
deposits a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with the trial Court in the shape of FDR of
a Nationalized bank towards 5 tola of gold jewellery, which is yet to be
recovered in the case. In case the petitioner is convicted in the case the
aforesaid FDR of Rs.2,50,000/- shall be disbursed to the complainant and
in the event of acquittal of the petitioner, the said amount shall be disbursed
to the petitioner.
However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and
when directed by the investigating agency and shall abide by the terms and
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
It is also made clear that since the present petition is confined
to offence under Sections 498A IPC and 406 IPC (added later on), this
Court has not made any observation as regards the allegation of rape
having been committed upon the complainant.
February 12, 2019 ( HARI PAL VERMA )
AK JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
4 of 4
13-02-2020 22:14:07 :::