Full Judgment
Cr.Misc.
M11536of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr.Misc.
M11536of 2014 Date of decision: May 27 ,2014 Sunil Singhal and anr .petitioner vs State of Haryana and anr ..respondent Present Mr.Raman Mahajan, Advocate.
Mr.Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.Gobind Dhanda, Advocate.
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
The petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Shyamali Sharma alleging that she was married to the son of the petitioners on 9.2.2010.
There are allegations regarding demand of dowry, taunts, physical and mental harassment to the complainant in India as well as abroad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that as a matter of fact the complainant had stayed with the son of the petitioners in South Africa as well as in Singapore.
On account of some differences between them, she had returned from Singapore in September, 2013.
The daughter of the complainant is being maintained by the petitioners whereas the son born out of the wedlock is with the complainant.
The matter was sent before Mediation Centre but it could not be amicably resolved, as such, the petition has been sent back for adjudication by this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the complaint filed by the complainant was thoroughly probed by Mann Tapindar Singh 2014.05.29 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Cr.Misc.
M11536of 2014 2 Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panchkula and that no truth was found in accusations made by the complainant.
He has informed that the son of the petitioners has already filed a divorce petition against the complainant.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the pre- arrest bail contending that complainant was given severe beatings and she suffered a head injury at the hands of her husband.
She returned to India along with her minor son and that the istridhan articles are lying with the petitioners and are not being permitted to be used by her by the petitioneRs.Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are ready for amicable settlement.
They are ready to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.15/20 lacs i.e.the price of the jewellery articles, alleged to be in possession of the petitioneRs.He has argued that so far as the matrimonial dispute with the son of the petitioners is concerned, he is not able to return to India on account of complaint having been filed by the complainant at Singapore.
The complainant present in the court submits that she has specifically given a statement to the Singapore police to the effect that she wanted to leave Singapore and is not wanting any action on her complainant, as such the excuse of the petitioners regarding the inability of their son to return to India is baseless and false.
The complainant has expressed her intention not to stay with her husband or to resume cohabitation any further.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that on account of matrimonial dispute, the complainant has been compelled to leave her husband and return to India, where she is compelled to stay with a child whereas another child, born out of the wedlock is being looked after by the petitioneRs.The FIR registered, pertaining to the allegations, seems to have been filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panchkula Mann Tapindar Singh 2014.05.29 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Cr.Misc.
M11536of 2014 3 on 6.11.2013 on the basis of an inquiry report.
It has been claimed by the petitioners that the matter has been inquired into and the allegations have been found to be false.
The complainant has wrongly got the FIR registered, availing the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.There are serious allegations against the petitioners that the gold jewellery, cash and Honda City car, entrusted to the petitioners when the complainant left for South Africa, have not been returned despite demand.
Even otherwise, the petitioners cannot be permitted to wash their hands of the obligations, arisen out of matrimonial bond by merely saying that their son, who has been blessed with two children, being out of India, are not liable for any action on his part.
Since the complainant is connected with the family of the petitioners through the sacred bond of marriage with their son, they have played a negative role in creating the circumstances, which compelled the complainant to stay away from the matrimonial home.
The allegations of physical and mental cruelty are writ large, besides the allegations of misappropriation of dowry articles, which are yet to be recovered.
In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any extra ordinary exceptional circumstances to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioneRs.Dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to approach this court again for relief in case the matter is amicably resolved between their son and the complainant.
May 27 ,2014 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE Mann Tapindar Singh 2014.05.29 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh