SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vishal Verma vs State Of Haryana on 5 February, 2019

CRM M-53013 of 2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM M-53013 of 2018
Date of Decision: February 05, 2019

Vishal Verma ……Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana …. Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH

Present : Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Ripu Daman, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant.

FATEH DEEP SINGH, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose off anticipatory bail application

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. moved in FIR No. 665 dated 05.11.2018

under Sections 323, 377, 406, 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC and Section

376(1) IPC which is added lateron, Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar,

District Hisar.

In her complaint, complainant-Anika claimed that present

petitioner Vishal Verma and she got married in Mohali in a Hotel on

21.07.2018 wherein huge dowry and costly gifts were given to the boy

and other family members. After the marriage, it is alleged that the

husband-petitioner Vishal Verma misbehaved with the complainant

and forced her into unnatural sex and she was physically tortured and

1 of 5
17-02-2019 02:09:35 :::
CRM M-53013 of 2018 -2-

on refusal of the complainant, she was physically abused.

Subsequently, when the dispute could not be sorted out, the

complainant brought the matter to the notice of her parents as well as

in-laws but to no avail and subsequently on the basis of her complaint

the present case was got registered.

Shri P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner at

the very onset contends that the petitioner had joined the investigation

and has sought to contend that the complainant was earlier married to

one Sukhwinder Singh on 22 April, 2014 at Hisar and she left the

matrimonial home on 07.04.2014 and got lodged a false FIR against

the then previous husband and, thereafter, fleecing him of

Rs.10,00,000/- compromising the matter and securing a divorce.

Submitting that in a same fashion, the present case has been brought

about further contending that the father of the girl as per his statement

claims to have retired as SDO PWD Hisar when he as per the RTI

information collected by the petitioner’s family was working as a road

inspector and has rather duped the family of the boy alleging that there

is neither any allegation of specific entrustment much less any case of

breach of trust. It is argued that under the amended definition of

Section 375 IPC being grown up such an sexual intercourse does not

fall within the definition of rape and even offence under Section

377 IPC becomes doubtful on account of lack of medical evidence. It

is argued that much of the allegations regarding gold jewellery and

costly gifts do not fall within the terminology of “istridhan” though

2 of 5
17-02-2019 02:09:36 :::
CRM M-53013 of 2018 -3-

which have been returned back are only falling within the scope of

gifts submitting that it was a second marriage of both the parties and,

therefore, giving huge dowry or lavish marriage is unacceptable and

has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana on assistance of SI Raj

Rani though accepts the that the petitioner has joined the investigation

but claims that certain gold articles are yet to be recovered and that

there are serious allegations of rape as well as unnatural offence

against the petitioner/husband and, therefore, his custodial

interrogation is essential.

Going through the submissions, it is the stand of the State

counsel that the petitioner has joined the investigation and only certain

gold ornaments are to be recovered but could not elaborate the items.

The documents placed on the record show that the first marriage of the

complainant took place on 22.04.2014 and she left the matrimonial

home on 07.04.2014, i.e. after 5 days and thereafter as is detailed in

the orders placed on the record of learned District Judge (Family

Court) Hisar dated 28.10.2015, the complainant had received

Rs.10,00,000/- from the then husband and got the marriage dissolved

by mutual consent. The claim of the father that he is an SDO as per the

statement made before the police on 25.09.2018 is negated by the

seniority list of road inspector placed on the record procured by the

petitioner under the Right to Information Act where he is shown to be

working as Work Mistri. However, without adverting on that aspect of

3 of 5
17-02-2019 02:09:36 :::
CRM M-53013 of 2018 -4-

the matter, however, claim of the complainant that it was a lavish

marriage appears to be highly improbable and unplausible proposition

in view of the economic status of the father of the complainant as

borne from the records placed on the file. The order (Annexure P-9)

placed on the record shows that co-accused have been allowed

anticipatory bail by the lower Court. To the specific query of the

Court, the learned State counsel could not bear out any allegations of

specific entrustment of the articles of “isthridhan” to the petitioner as

well as criminal breach of trust qua him. The articles detailed in the

FIR are only falling within the terminology of gifts given to various

relations of the husband. There is no cogent evidence to show by any

medical evidence any signs of unnatural sex have been performed with

the complainant and the medical advice is quite vague and

unambiguous. More so, it has now days become a trend in our society

to fleece the husband side by levelling shocking allegations which stir

the conscience of the Court and the trend of slapping of Sections 376

and 377 IPC.

In the light of what has been detailed and discussed

above, together with the fact that culpability, if any, of the petitioner

shall be determined at the trial which is not likely to be concluded in

the near future and it would be travesty of justice if the petitioner is

sent behind the bars. Therefore, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be

released on interim bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating

Officer. The petitioner shall, however, join the investigation as and

4 of 5
17-02-2019 02:09:36 :::
CRM M-53013 of 2018 -5-

when called for to do so and he shall abide by the conditions as

envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Disposed off.

February 05, 2019 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
amit rana JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5
17-02-2019 02:09:36 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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