SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vivek Kumar Choudhary And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 April, 2018

CRM-M No. 28586-2017 (OM) [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 28586-2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: 03.04.2018

Vivek Kumar Choudhary and others………………. Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another………………………… Respondents

CORAM : Hon’ble Ms. Justice Lisa Gill

Present : Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocate and
Mr. S.K. Sharma (Budhladawale), Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Ashok S. Chaudhary, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

***

LISA GILL, J.(Oral)

The petitioners seek the concession of anticipatory bail in

FIR No. 29 dated 22.06.2017 under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 323, 377

IPC registered at Mahila Police Station Panchkula.

Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 the father-in-

law and petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law (Devar) of the complainant.

As per the allegations in the FIR, marriage between petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.2 was solemnized on 13.07.2016 at Rock Garden, Sector

1, Chandigarh. Two functions were earlier held at Gurugram (Haryana)

and Sahibabad in U.P. Petitioner No.1 was posted at Chennai, working

with Indian Oil Corporation. After marriage the complainant/respondent

No.2 stayed with petitioner No.1 at Chennai for about a month and

returned to Gurugram as she was posted at Gurugram. Allegations of ill-

1 of 5
06-05-2018 09:19:42 :::
CRM-M No. 28586-2017 (OM) [ 2 ]

treatment and harassment at the hands of petitioner No.1 are raised in

the FIR. It is alleged that a lot of expense was incurred at the marriage.

A Hyundai Toyota Car as well as valuable jewellery was given at the

time of marriage. However, the complainant was pressurized to demand

her share in property from her parents. She was also asked to incur a

loan of `20 lakhs for use of the petitioners. Allegations attracting the

rigours of Section 377 IPC were raised as well. Petitioner No.1, it is

stated, shifted to Delhi in April, 2017. It is further stated that when the

complainant and petitioner No.1 were at the parental home of the

complainant in February 2017, petitioner No.1 pressurized the

complainant to speak to her parents regarding transfer of their house at

Gurugram in her name. Allegations regarding the incident in Panchkula

are also levelled in the FIR. Behaviour of the petitioners did not improve

and ultimately the complainant was forced to leave the matrimonial

home on 25.04.2017. On the basis of the said complaint formal FIR

No.29 dated 22.06.2017 under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 323, 377 IPC

was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that all

the petitioners are well settled in their professions. There were

temperamental differences between the parties since the beginning of

their marriage. When things did not seem to be improve at all, petitioner

No.1 in desparation served a legal notice dated 11.05.2017 (Annexure

P8) upon the complainant wherein he has also expressed the desire to go

in for marriage counselling to save their marriage. However, reply dated

18.05.2017 was received by the petitioners. Ultimately a petition for

2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 06-05-2018 09:19:43 :::
CRM-M No. 28586-2017 (OM) [ 3 ]

annulment of marriage or in the alternative divorce under the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by petitioner No.1 on 30.05.2017. The

present FIR was registered on 22.06.2017. It is contended that all the

alleged incidents took place at Gurugram and the police at Panchkula has

no jurisdiction to look into the matter. Moreover, there is no medical

evidence or any other evidence on record to substantiate the allegations

regarding commission of the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC.

All the articles of dowry have been returned by the petitioners. All of

them have joined investigation. They undertake to face the proceedings

and not abuse the concession of anticipatory bail if granted.

In respect of petitioners No.2 and 3, it is submitted that the

complainant never resided at the matrimonial home along with the said

petitioners. All allegations against them are absolutely incorrect. It is,

thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this

petition while submitting that specific allegations have been levelled

against the petitioners. The complainant was subjected to ill-treatment

and harassment right from the very beginning of the marriage. Her

parents reside at Panchkula and specific details of the incident which took

place at Panchkula have been given in the FIR itself. Therefore, it cannot

be said that the present FIR has been wrongly registered at Panchkula.

The conduct of petitioner No.1 it is submitted is to be deprecated with a

special reference to the legal notice which was sent by him. It is

contended that it appears to be a deliberate attempt to create evidence in

the matter. All the dowry articles it is submitted have not been returned.

3 of 5
06-05-2018 09:19:43 :::
CRM-M No. 28586-2017 (OM) [ 4 ]

The ownership of the car in question, which though in possession of the

complainant has not been transferred by petitioner No.1. It is submitted

that the complainant has been a victim of matrimonial abuse.

Learned counsel for the State while referring to the status

report dated 09.01.2018 submits that investigation of this case was

transferred from the Women Police Station Panchkula to the State Crime

Branch Haryana vide order dated 14.07.2017 by DGP, Haryana, on a

representation by petitioner No.2. Thereafter, a Special Investigation

Team was constituted to investigate the matter. It is further pointed out

that offence punishable under Section 377 IPC was again added after

receipt of opinion of the Medical Board on 22.09.2017. It is submitted

that though some dowry articles have been recovered, few of the

recoveries are yet to be effected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in order to

display their bona fides the petitioners are willing to deposit a sum of

`02 lakh by way of FDR in favour of the complainant without prejudice

to their rights and subject to the outcome of the trial. Petitioner No.1

undertakes to take all requisite steps for transfer of ownership of the

Hyundai Toyota car in question in favour of the complainant/respondent

No.2 within one week from today.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

Allegations and counter-allegations have been raised by both

the parties. It is noticed that an effort was made for an amicable

settlement of the dispute between the parties. However, mediation failed.

At one stage it was expressed that resumption of matrimonial ties would

4 of 5
06-05-2018 09:19:43 :::
CRM-M No. 28586-2017 (OM) [ 5 ]

not be possible. However, consensual amount for permanent

settlement/alimony etc. could not be arrived at between the parties .

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Sanjay Kumar, verifies that all the petitioners have joined investigation.

There are no allegations that the petitioner is likely to abscond or that he

is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court,

if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is considered

just and expedient to allow this petition as incarceration of the petitioners

shall not serve any useful purpose.

Consequently, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they be

released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/investigating Officer.

The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so.

Petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 438 (2)

Cr.P.C.

Liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to move an

appropriate applicatioin in case any of the petitioners indulge in any kind

of activity consisting of an infraction of the conditions of bail or make an

attempt to threaten or intimidate the complainant.

( LISA GILL)
JUDGE
April 03, 2018
rupi

Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
06-05-2018 09:19:43 :::

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