203+102.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2562-2018 (OM)
Date of decision:29.05.2019.
SAKSHAM GUPTA …. Petitioner
versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR …. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
—-
Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukjija, Advocate, for
Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
—-
HARI PAL VERMA, J.
Prayer in this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.162 dated 23.09.2017
registered under Sections 406/Section498A of IPC at Police Station Kharar, District
SAS Nagar, Mohali.
The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of Aditi Goyal
(complainant-respondent No.2), who married the petitioner-Saksham Gupta
on 27.04.2015. As per the FIR, the parents of the complainant spent about
Rs.30 lakhs in the marriage, but right from the first day of the marriage, the
in-laws family was not happy. After marriage, when the complainant went
to her in-laws family at Ghaziabad, she was taunted by her in-laws while
saying that her parents have not given quality clothes and other articles in
1 of 7
14-07-2019 11:28:24 :::
CRM-M-2562-2018 (OM) -2-
the marriage. Their hope/wish for a big car also shattered. Though the
complainant tried to convince her in-laws family that her parents are salaried
employees and they have already spent substantial amount in her marriage
beyond their capacity, but still they (accused) were not satisfied. They forced
her that she should get their wish of car fulfilled from her parents. The
complainant tried to convince the petitioner (husband) that whenever there
will be happy occasion in her family like her brother’s marriage, she will talk
to her parents to meet the demand of car, but still the petitioner was not
ready to agree.
On 29.03.2016, a daughter was born to the complainant in her
parental house in Sekhon Nursing Home, Sector 33, Chandigarh. On the
birth of a daughter, her in-laws family expressed unhappiness and stated that
she (complainant) has supplemented their burden by giving birth to a girl
child.
Since the complainant has opened an account under the
“Sukanya Scheme” and has deposited some amount in this account, the
in-laws family misbehaved with her and rather stated that they needed the
money in cash. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that her father-in-
law was having some property dispute and he has to repay money to certain
persons. Then she came to know that her all salary was withdrawn from her
bank account and was used for returning the debt of her father-in-law.
Though initially the complainant did not object, but after giving birth to a
daughter, she realized that she should have some money for the future of the
child by saving the salary. On this, her husband started abusing and
misbehaved with her. The complainant did not disclose anything to her
parents.
2 of 7
14-07-2019 11:28:24 :::
CRM-M-2562-2018 (OM) -3-
On 02.04.2017, the engagement ceremony of the complainant’s
brother Adarsh Goyal was scheduled to be held in Hemtel Hotel. Her
parents and brother gave invitation to her in-laws family by going to
Ghaziabad on 29.03.2017. Since on the said day i.e. 29.03.2017, it was the
birthday of the complainant’s daughter, many gift articles were brought by
them. After attending the function at Ghaziabad, the complainant along with
her parents came to Chandigarh in the night, but before coming, the
complainant asked her mother-in-law to give her some jewellery so as to
wear in the function i.e. marriage of her brother. However, her mother-in-
law replied that as the bank will reopen the next day, after getting the
ornaments from the locker, they will bring the ornaments on the day of
function.
But on the relevant day, none came from her in-laws family to
attend the function and on repeated calls, her husband reached in the evening
straightway to Hotel Hemtel and after one hour, he went back by saying that
he has received a telephonic call that the condition of his father, who is a
heart patient, has suddenly deteriorated and he has to take him to hospital.
However, her maternal uncle accompanied the petitioner for Ghaziabad and
on reaching there at 2.30 in the night, they found that her father-in-law was
absolutely fine and was sleeping. The next day i.e. 03.04.017, the
complainant along with her parents and brother also reached her in-laws
house. Her in-laws started complaining that they were told that whenever the
marriage of her brother-Adarsh would be fixed, they would be given some
big item as a gift but nothing was given to them. The complainant’s father
tried to convince the in-laws that at the time of marriage of Adarsh, they will
give the in-laws something as per their capacity, but do not harass their
3 of 7
14-07-2019 11:28:24 :::
CRM-M-2562-2018 (OM) -4-
daughter.
The marriage of her brother was fixed for 12.05.2017. On
06.05.2017, her parents along with wedding card and envelop of shagun
reached her in-laws house, but after watching envelop of shagun which
contained Rs.11,000/-, her father-in-law started abusing them and her
husband also gave beating to her father. Her husband threatened her parents
that they will involve him in a false case, due to which they put their hands
under pressure before the police in writing that they have not given any
dowry.
All the dowry articles including gold jewellery are lying in the
house of her in-laws. She had been harassed and maltreated by her in-laws
on account of demand of more dowry. On the basis of aforesaid complaint,
the present case has been registered.
The petitioner filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, but the
same was declined vide order dated 12.01.2018.
This Court while issuing notice of motion in the case on
22.01.2018 passed the following order:-
“Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
ready to settle the dispute amicably either by rehabilitating the
wife in the form of permanent alimony, maintenance etc. or
residing together. She submits that the matter should be
referred to mediation.
The bail application was declined primarily on the
ground that the petitioner herein was not cooperating. This
Court is not inclined to interfere for grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner, however, an assurance has been given to this
Court that every effort will be made by the petitioner to settle
4 of 7
14-07-2019 11:28:24 :::
CRM-M-2562-2018 (OM) -5-
the dispute before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this
Court.
Notice of motion.
Parties are directed to appear before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court on 01.03.2018.
Meanwhile, in view of the assurance given above, the
petitioner, in the event of arrest, be released on interim bail
subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the
satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the
petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon
to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under
Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
Petitioner is directed to bring a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as
litigation expenses payable to the respondent-complainant, on
the next date of hearing.”
The matter was accordingly sent for mediation as some
recovery including the documents of the complainant were to be effected in
the case and the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation.
Counsel for the complainant has filed an application i.e. CRM-
2729-2019 mentioning the list of items which were not recovered in the case
so far and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to appear before the I.O.
on 29.04.2019 to join investigation.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that present is a case of
extreme misuse of provisions of Section 498-A IPC. It is the complainant
who could not adjust in the family. She used to harass and maltreat the
petitioner and his parents. The complainant had threatened the petitioner
either to leave his parents or to face the consequences of a false case.
Though efforts were made by the respectables to resolve the matter at
number of times, but she is not able to adjust herself in the family and
5 of 7
14-07-2019 11:28:24 :::
CRM-M-2562-2018 (OM) -6-
moved a false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner and his parents.
It has become a tendency to involve every family member with the
allegation of dowry demand and harassment thereof, whereas the ground
reality is entirely different and for one reason or the other, in the present
case, the couple could not pull well. The registration of present case is a
glaring misuse of process of law. No custodial interrogation of the petitioner
is required in the case as all dowry articles, as alleged, have already been
taken away by the complainant which has duly been established in the
enquiry. The petitioner has joined the investigation number of times, but the
Investigating Officer has wrongly reported before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation
and his custodial interrogation is required. Since the IO is biased towards
the petitioner and his parents, he is acting under the influence of the family
of the complainant, who are Punjab Government employees. The FIR has
been chosen to be registered at Kharar, whereas the complainant and family
members are permanent residents of Chandigarh and the complainant, after
marriage, lived at Ghaziabad. They have neither approached the Chandigarh
police nor the Ghaziabad police, but has approached the Kharar police for
the reasons but known to the complainant. In view of judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar and another passed in
SLP (Crl.) No.9127 of 2013, the petitioner is entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail.
Counsel for the complainant as well as the State counsel have
argued that recovery in the case is yet to be effected. Since the petitioner is
not cooperating with the investigation, he is not entitled for the discretionary
relief of anticipatory bail.
6 of 7
14-07-2019 11:28:24 :::
CRM-M-2562-2018 (OM) -7-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The order dated 22.01.2018 passed by this Court does reflect
that the petitioner has got interim bail primarily on his statement that he is
ready to settle the dispute amicably either by rehabilitating the wife in the
form of permanent alimony, maintenance etc. or residing together and on
this plea, the matter was referred to mediation also. Not only the mediation
failed but during investigation, the petitioner despite having joined the
investigation has not cooperated with the investigation. Much of the articles
are still required to be recovered in the case. The conduct of the petitioner
during investigation when his anticipatory bail was being considered before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge was somewhat similar, as though he
joined the investigation but did not cooperate and accordingly, his custodial
interrogation was necessitated.
The petitioner is husband of the complainant. The marriage took
place on 24.01.2015. At different times, petitioner was directed to cooperate
with the investigation but recovery of dowry articles has not been
completely effected. In this manner, this Court finds no ground to admit the
petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed.
(HARI PAL VERMA)
JUDGE
29.05.2019
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
7 of 7
14-07-2019 11:28:24 :::