SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Saksham Gupta vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 29 May, 2019

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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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