Rohit DogrA. Vs. State of Punjab and Another. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1056903
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnNov-19-2012
AppellantRohit DogrA.
RespondentState of Punjab and Another.
Excerpt:
crm not m-5282 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. not m- 5282 of 2012(o&m) date of decision: november 19, 2012. rohit dogra.....petitioner(s) versus state of punjab and another.....respondent (s) coram:- hon'ble mr.justice ram chand gupta present: mr.p.s.ahluwalia, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.rajesh bhardwaj, addl.a.g., punjab. mr.vipin mahajan, advocate, for respondent no.2. ***** ram chand gupta, j.(oral) the present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under section 438 of code of criminal procedure in fir no.118 dated 23.12.2011, under sections 498a/406 ipc, registered at police station division no.1, pathankot, district gurdaspur. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned additional sessions judge, gurdaspur dismissing bail application filed by the petitioner. crm not m-5282 o”2. brief allegations are that, marriage of petitioner and respondent no.2 was solemnised on 23.11.2005 as per hindu rites and ceremonies. sufficient articles were given in the dowry. however, petitioner and other family members were not satisfied with the same. on 01.10.2006 i.e.just after 10 months of the marriage, petitioner alongwith respondent no.2- complainant visited the house of her parents. father of complainant already expired. he told mother of complainant that she should give one shop and two rooms to him so that he may construct a mall on that site. however, mother of complainant refused to concede this request of petitioner. he went away and became angry as to why mother of complainant had refused to accept his proposal. harassment of complainant started. there are specific allegations of acts of physical cruelty being committed upon her by petitioner and other family members as per detail given in the fir. panchayats were also held. matter was also duly inquired into by the police before registration of the fir. at the time of issuing notice of motion, it was contended on behalf of petitioner that he was ready to keep complainant-wife and minot child in the matrimonial home. reconciliation efforts were made by this court. parties were also sent to mediation and conciliation centre of this court for making efforts for settlement but to no effect. however, petitioner is not ready to keep respondent-wife and the minot child in the matrimonial home. bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent-state as well as by learned counsel for respondent crm not m-5282 o”3. no.2-complainant. hence, keeping in view these facts, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by rohit dogra is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. interim order dated 23.02.2012 already granted in his favour stands vacated. ( ram chand gupta ) november 19, 2012. judge ‘om’
Judgment:

CRM not M-5282 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M- 5282 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: November 19, 2012.

Rohit Dogra.....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab and another.....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.118 dated 23.12.2011, under Sections 498A/406 IPC, registered at police station Division No.1, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing bail application filed by the petitioner.

CRM not M-5282 o”

2. Brief allegations are that, marriage of petitioner and respondent no.2 was solemnised on 23.11.2005 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

Sufficient articles were given in the dowry.

However, petitioner and other family members were not satisfied with the same.

On 01.10.2006 i.e.just after 10 months of the marriage, petitioner alongwith respondent no.2- complainant visited the house of her parents.

Father of complainant already expired.

He told mother of complainant that she should give one shop and two rooms to him so that he may construct a Mall on that site.

However, mother of complainant refused to concede this request of petitioner.

He went away and became angry as to why mother of complainant had refused to accept his proposal.

Harassment of complainant started.

There are specific allegations of acts of physical cruelty being committed upon her by petitioner and other family members as per detail given in the FIR.

Panchayats were also held.

Matter was also duly inquired into by the police before registration of the FIR.

At the time of issuing notice of motion, it was contended on behalf of petitioner that he was ready to keep complainant-wife and minot child in the matrimonial home.

Reconciliation efforts were made by this Court.

Parties were also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for making efforts for settlement but to no effect.

However, petitioner is not ready to keep respondent-wife and the minot child in the matrimonial home.

Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent-State as well as by learned counsel for respondent CRM not M-5282 o”

3. no.2-complainant.

Hence, keeping in view these facts, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused.

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Rohit Dogra is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.

Interim order dated 23.02.2012 already granted in his favour stands vacated.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 19, 2012.

JUDGE ‘om’