Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 8.12.2017
Sanchit Gupta
…Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh
…Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. A.K. Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Additional Public Prosecutor,
Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate,
for the complainant.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. This criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 49 dated 03.06.2017 under Sections 406/498A of IPC
at Police Station Women, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
2. In brief the facts are, that FIR No. 49 dated 03.06.2017 under
Sections 406/498A of IPC was registered at Police Station Women, Sector
17, Chandigarh, at the behest of Sh. Anoop Kumar alleging that the
marriage was solemnized between the petitioner Sanchit Gupta and Palak
Jain, daughter of the complainant on 26. 11.2015. The matrimonial alliance
was finalized after the parties had been introduced to each other through a
1 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:23 :::
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 2
matrimonial website www.shaadi.com. The families met and it was informed
that Sanchit Gupta, the petitioner, has a M.D.S. degree and has a
government job in the Haryana government. Apart from that, they were
informed that he is in owner of a four-bedroom flat, a shop in upscale area
of South Delhi, where he proposed to open a clinic. The complainant’s party
was informed that Sanchit Gupta also has a ranch in United States of
America. At the time of the wedding, an amount of approximately `60 lakhs
was spent which would include dinner and stay at a five-star hotel, namely
JW Marriott. Demand for car was made and a sum of `10 Lacs was handed
over on 17.11.2015. Despite a lavish wedding, the daughter of the
complainant was not treated with love or affection on account of bringing
inadequate dowry. Moreover, apart from ill treating Palak Jain, it came to
the knowledge that a fraud had been played upon the daughter in so far as
Sanchit Gupta did not have a government job, neither did he own any ranch
in USA, and he was in an extramarital relationship.
3. After the registration of the FIR, apprehending arrest the
petitioner approached the Additional District and Sessions at Chandigarh for
grant of pre-arrest bail. It was alleged that all information was supplied to
the complainant and his daughter regarding the qualifications of the
petitioner at the time of the marriage, however, the complainant’s daughter
left the matrimonial home of her own accord, which compelled the
petitioner to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
which is still pending adjudication. It was contended that the petitioner
would be entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail.
2 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 3
4. The matter was investigated and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor contended that the petitioner with dishonest intention had created
his profile on a matrimonial site giving incorrect particulars, which had been
removed from the site, after the dispute arose between the parties. In this
background, the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, declined to grant
of pre-arrest bail. Aggrieved the instant petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the petitioner is always ready and willing to settle the matrimonial
dispute. This fact has been controverted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the complainant, who argues that the petitioner herein is an
unreliable person having played a fraud upon the complainant and his
daughter by putting incorrect matrimonial details on the website. It is also
contended that the petitioner herein mentally and physically harassed Palak
Jain on account of inadequate dowry and should not be entitled to grant of
anticipatory bail.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
7. At the very outset, when the matter was came up for hearing
before this court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there had
been talks of mediation before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh,
which failed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
would still be ready to settle the dispute amicably and to show his bona fide
would deposit a sum of `20 lakhs with the Registry of this court within a
period of 15 days. It was also submitted that certain dowry articles had been
recovered by the Women Cell and the list of the same is attached as
3 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 4
Annexure P/4. Notice of motion was issued for 10.10.2017 with a direction
to the petitioner to deposit a sum of `20 lakhs with the Registry of this court
within a period of 15 days while staying the arrest of the petitioner. The
parties were also called in court to explore the possibility of an amicable
resolution to the dispute by referring them to the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this court. The case was taken up on 10.10.2017 and counsel for
the Union Territory, Chandigarh, informed this court that the petitioner had
not deposited `20 lakhs in terms of the order dated 28.08.2017; nor had he
joined the investigation, as had been directed. Appearance was also caused
on behalf of the complainant and counsel informed that bills worth `70
lakhs had been submitted to the Investigating Officer, who had verified the
same.
8. The parties were sent for mediation which was not fruitful. The
question before this court would be, whether the petitioner herein is entitled
to grant of anticipatory bail after the same had been declined by the
Additional District Session Judge, Chandigarh?
9. At the time of seeking notice of motion and stay of arrest, a
categoric statement had been made that the petitioner would be ready to
settle the dispute amicably. Mediation failed and even this court made every
attempt to get the parties to settle the disputes. Learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Union Territory, Chandigarh, categorically submits that
bills have been verified, as presented by the complainant, which would
reflect that sufficient amount had been spent upon the marriage. There are
also some cash transactions which have not been taken into account. It is
4 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 5
also submitted that the items that have been recovered are nothing more than
perfumes, make-up items, personal clothing, few clothes, shawls which in
fact are not of much value, while submitting that the major items pertaining
to gold have yet to be recovered. It is also confirmed that the petitioner had
posted incorrect details about his qualification and job description and assets
at the time when he had got himself registered with the matrimonial website
and he does not have necessary qualifications, or the job as claimed. The
fact of marriage having been solemnized at JW Marriot, which is a five-star
hotel in Chandigarh, has also been verified, which would be indicative that
the complainant had spent a sufficient amount at the time of marriage of his
daughter. Even before this court stay had been obtained by submitting that
20 lakhs would be deposited in the registry within a period of 15 days to
show his bona fide, however, the same was deposited after a period of 6
weeks.
10. This court is conscious of the fact that court should not deny
bail only on the account that recoveries have yet to be effected, as in the
instant case. The offence under Section 498A is non-bailable and if court is
prima facie of the view that the petitioner has obtained concession of pre-
arrest bail by misleading the court, the court would have no hesitation in
vacating the same. It has now become a trend of making an offer of
settlement at the very 1st instance, to become uncooperative immediately
thereafter, as has been noticed by this court in the present case itself. It is
well-settled law that grant of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief
which is to be extended only when the applicant/accused is able to make out
5 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 31528 of 2017 6
a case of exceptional hardship in his favour. The petitioner put up false
information about himself on the website, as has been investigated by the
police and, therefore, in the totality of the circumstances that have been
narrated above, this court is not inclined to allow this petition.
11. Dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be
construed as an opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be decided on
the basis of the evidence produced before the trial court.
12. The Registry is directed to refund the amount of `20 lakhs to
the petitioner deposited by him in this Court.
8.12.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
prem JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
6 of 6
15-12-2017 23:54:25 :::
