Lalit Sharma Vs. Lalit Sharma - Court Judgment

Crl.M.not M-28236 of 2013(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.M.not M-28236 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: August 27, 2013 Lalit Sharma .....Petitioner v.

State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner....RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.38102 of 2013 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M.not M-28236 of 2013 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.266, dated 24.7.2013, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Brief allegations are that petitioner is husband of complainant.

Marriage of complainant was performed with petitioner on 14.10.2009 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

Sufficient dowry was given by parents of the complainant as per their capacity.

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

There was demand of `1.00 lac in cash and a car.

When complainant visited the house of her parents for phera ceremony on 18.10.2009, petitioner alongwith all the co-accused accompanied her and raised the said demand before her parents in the Crl.M.not M-28236 of 2013(O&M) -2- presence of other relatives of family of the complainant.

In order to save the marriage, parents of the complainant somehow arranged `50,000/- and paid the same to the present petitioner in the presence of other accused and hence, complainant was allowed to enter the matrimonial home.

She got pregnant and gave birth to a female child and all the expenses were borne by her parents.

After birth of a female child, behaviour of petitioner and family members became more cruel towards her and they again raised demand of a car.

Complainant had been bearing all the acts of cruelty being committed upon her with the hope that things would change with the passage of time and, however, she was turned out of the matrimonial home alongwith her minot daughter just in three clothes.

Various panchayats were convened by parents of the complainant but to no effect.

Even in the panchayat, demand of a car and `1.00 lac cash was raised.

An application was moved by the complainant before Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, and, however, no action had been taken on the same and rather complainant was directed to move complaint before the competent authority.

When petitioner-accused assured that he would not demand any dowry in future from the complainant, the said complaint was withdrawn by her.

However, cruel acts of petitioner no.1 did not stop and she was turned out of the matrimonial home and not she alongwith her minot daughter is residing with her parents.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that he is ready to settle the matter with the complainant and that he also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

However, there are serious allegations against petitioner- accused.

Efforts for reconciliation were already made.

Complainant had been tolerating cruel behaviour of petitioner and other family membeRs.She also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

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

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Crl.M.not M-28236 of 2013(O&M) -3- present petition filed by petitioner-Lalit Sharma for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

27.8.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge