CRM M-35061 of 2013 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM M-35061 of 2013 Date of Decision: July 4, 2014 Vishal Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI.
-.- Present:- Mr.Dhruv Kapur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Saini, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Rajiv Mittal, Advocate.
-.- M.M.S.BEDI, J.
(ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Jyoti alleging that she was married to the petitioner on November 29, 2012.
Though sufficient dowry was given by her parents but her in-laws were not happy.
They demanded sum of Rs.7 lacs for a car.
She was treated with cruelty on account of demand of dowry having not been fulfilled.
The petitioner is alleged to have tried to strangulate her and forced her to indulge in unnatural sex.
Gupta Sanjay 2014.07.18 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-35061 of 2013 [2].Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has already joined investigation pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court.
Recoveries have already been effected.
The mother of the petitioner has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.
It was argued that it is the unreasonable demand of the complainant to stay away from the parents of the petitioner which has resulted in discord.
It was argued that the petitioner has always been ready to settle the matter and resume cohabitation with the complainant but it was the complainant who was never interested in the relationship.
She has deserted the petitioner.
It was urged that the entire jewellary articles having been returned, there was no reason to arrest the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the complainant.
It is not out of place to observe here that the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of compromise.
An attempt was made to persuade the parties to resume cohabitation.
They were called in the Court on April 4, 2014.
When the complainant had agreed to accompany the petitioner, though she had complained that she was not permitted to stay in the shared accommodation in the matrimonial home which is a four bedroom flat in Nagpur.
Though it is the right of the wife under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to stay in the shared residence but on account of denial of said right she had raised a grievance.
Both of them agreed to make an attempt to stay in the matrimonial home in the shared accommodation on Gupta Sanjay 2014.07.18 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-35061 of 2013 [3].April 11, 2014, but subsequently complainant informed that she has not been provided requisite dignity and was compelled to stay way from the matrimonial home.
State counsel informs that the istridhan of the complainant is yet to be recovered and that there were serious allegations of cruelty as there is specific allegation of demand of dowry, misappropriation of the same and physical assault.
I have considered all the circumstances of the case and I am of the opinion that the objective of Section 498 A IPC would be defeated in case despite grave allegations of a wife regarding acts of physical and mental cruelty leniency is shown to the husband.
It is presumed that no female would leave her matrimonial home and stay away unless until she is compelled by the cruel and inhuman behaviour of her husband and in-laws.
When the allegations are levelled against husband and his family members it is the responsibility of the husband to ensure that his wife is maintained with dignity and equality.
In the present case, all the efforts for reconciliation have failed on account of the unreasonable and inhuman conduct of the petitioner.
The extent of cruelty in the present case is prima facie established by the petitioner himself by stating that his wife indulges in telephonic communication with another person having affair with her.
Such a suspicion and allegations is sufficient enough to compel the complainant wife to remain away from the matrimonial home.
Mere notice and offer for resuming cohabitation is nothing but an act of camouflage to put-forth Gupta Sanjay 2014.07.18 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-35061 of 2013 [4].excuse to seek benefit under Section 438 Cr.P.C.No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed.
July 4, 2014 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE Gupta Sanjay 2014.07.18 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh