Criminal Misc. No. M-15094 of 2016 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-15094 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : November 16, 2018
Vijay Gupta
….Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another
….Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh
Present : Mr. AS Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the State
Mr. Arif Qureshi, Advocate, for the complainant
Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of anticipatory bail filed under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case bearing FIR No. 20 dated
23.4.2016 under Sections 498A/506 IPC and subsequently added Section
406 IPC on 9.6.2016 and Sections 420,465,467,468,471 IPC on 2.11.2016,
pertaining to Police Station Women, Bathinda, got lodged by wife
complainant Rekha Jindal.
The precise allegations brought to the notice of the Court
during the course of submissions are that the present case was got registered
1 of 3
29-12-2018 14:38:50 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-15094 of 2016 (OM) -2-
on the complaint of wife Rekha Jindal wherein she alleged that she was
married on 25.4.2012 with petitioner accused Vijay Gupta. It is alleged that
at the time of marriage huge gold ornaments and other costly articles were
given and her Ishtridhan was handed over to the accused who refused to
return back the same and rather she was subjected to harassment and cruelty
for demand of more dowry leading to the registration of the present case.
Mr. AS Ahluwalia, counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the present FIR is a counter blast to the allegations of the husband
whereby he has sought divorce from the wife and that the allegations of
physical abuse and demand of dowry were fabricated with an ulterior
motive and neither any specific allegation of cruelty much less specific
entrustment of articles of Ishtridhan and criminal breach of trust are made
out.
On behalf of the State assisted by counsel for the complainant,
the same is sought to be opposed on the grounds that the petitioner happens
to be the husband and principal accused with whom after the marriage the
complainant was residing and invariably the articles of Ishtridhan were
lying with him in his possession and having usurped the same and who
managed to fabricate certain documents necessitates his custodial
interrogation disentitling him to any relief.
Appreciating the arguments put forth by the two sides, it is not
in any manner put to dispute that the marriage between the couple took
place on 25.4.2012 and the FIR has been lodged on 23.4.2016. There are
2 of 3
29-12-2018 14:38:51 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-15094 of 2016 (OM) -3-
specific allegations of handing over of Ishtridhan to the husband, his
demand for more dowry articles as well as physical abuse and mental
cruelty. Though as is evident that the husband has sought to set off
accusation of having committed criminal offence by invoking the complaint
against the wife and thus, apparently to thwart the applicability of having
misappropriated the articles of Ishtridhan. Recovery of the articles of
Ishtridhan as per the submissions of the learned State counsel still needs to
be made together with the offences for which the petitioner has been hauled
up necessitates his custodial interrogation. Provisions of Section 438
Cr.P.C. are to be sparingly used especially it is not a deserving case for
sympathetic consideration of such a relief for the petitioner. The petition
being hopelessly without merits stands dismissed.
( Fateh Deep Singh )
November 16, 2018 Judge
‘tiwana’
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
Whether Reportable ? Yes/No
3 of 3
29-12-2018 14:38:51 :::
