Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Nath Gulati And Others vs State Of Punjab on 7 June, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 7.6.2012
Prem Nath Gulati and others .....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab ....Respondent
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK **** Present : Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the petitioners.
...
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J Crl.Misc.No.35062 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Crl.Misc. Application stands disposed of.
Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 The instant petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' for short) has been filed by the petitioners seeking pre- arrest bail in FIR No.255 dated 7.12.2011 under Sections 498-A, 406,506,120-B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station City, Ferozepur, Distt. Ferozepur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that no case of any kind, whatsoever, is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners are the old parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant, who have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that in the earlier petition Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 2 filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C., vide Crl.Misc.No.M- 8021 of 2012, this court granted the protection of interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners vide order dated 21.3.2012 (Annexure P-2) . However, the said petition was withdrawn by the petitioners because they had not approached the learned court of Sessions at the first instance. This court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the learned court of Sessions at the first instance vide order dated 2.5.2012 and the same reads as under :-
" After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the court of Sessions in the first instance.
Learned State counsel does not oppose the prayer. On instructions from ASI Jaswant Singh, he submits that proposal, if any, to arrest the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance for one week.
In view of above, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of the above said order passed by this court, the petitioners approached the learned court of Sessions at Ferozepur. However, vide impugned order dated 26.5.2012 (Annexure P-14), the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, has declined the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail proceeding on wholly misconceived approach. It was also contended that the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge about the conduct of the petitioners in not joining the investigation were wholly Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 3 unwarranted. Learned counsel for the petitioners concluded by submitting that the present petition deserves to be accepted.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and with his able assistance have gone through the record of the case.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the conduct of the petitioners, this court is of the considered opinion that present one is not a fit case for exercising the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I say so because allegations against the petitioners are direct and serious. Prima facie, the role played by the petitioners seem to be the main reason, which compelled the complainant wife to put the criminal law into motion against the petitioners. Strong motive has been alleged against the petitioners.
Having said that, it would be appropriate to refer to the allegations in the FIR. The initial relevant part of the FIR reads as under :-
"It is stated that accused no.1 Vishal Gulati is my husband, accused no.2 Prem Nath my father-in-law, accused no.3 Smt.Neelam Gulati w/o Shri Prem Nath Gulati is my mother-in-law, accused no.4 Vikas Gulati S/o Shri Prem Nath Gulati is my brother-in-law (Jeth), no.5 Neha Gulati w/o Shri Vikas Gulati is my Jethani, no.6 Sarika D/o Prem Nath Gulati, resident of House No.C-20, Sector 34, Noida (UP), No.7 Mamta D/o Prem Nath W/o Amit, resident of House No.C-2, Sector 34, Noida (UP) are my sisters-in-law (Nanads) and accused Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 4 No.1 and accused No.8 Aarti Arora D/o Sanjeev Arora, resident of Multani Gate Mohalla, Opp. Mandir Rani Bagh, Anew Delhi on the instigation and the wishes of other accused want to contract a second marriage, whereas the accused no.1,2,4 are living and doing their business together. The other co-accused no.3,5 and 6 are also residing with the above said accused while accused No.7 who was got married in 2003 was residing with them prior to her marriage. My marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on 9.2.2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and according to demand of accused No.1 to 7 my marriage took place at Delhi. Before marriage, my ring ceremony and Roka Ceremony with the accused No.1 were performed on 6.2.2000 at ancestral house at Bahroon Bansi Gate, Circular Road, Ferozepur City in the presence of our relatives."
Thereafter, the complainant has levelled direct and specific allegations against accused nos.1 to 7 and the same read as under :-
" Accused No.1 Vishal Gulati - given one new Maruti Car 800, whose Chassis No.1410781, Engine No.1985633, Model 2000, whose bill is in the name of my grand father Shri Jagdish Lal and the car registration No. is PB-05-G-0115 and Gold Kara weighing 5 tolas, one gold chain weighing 2 tolas, one diamond ring Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 5 (costly ring 23,500).
Accused No.2 Prem Nath Gulati - given Rs.2,00,000/- cash, one gold Bracelet weighing 2 tolas, one Deck Microwave, T.V., Fridge,AC.
Accused No.3 Smt. Neelam Gulati - given one diamond set costing Rs.1,25,000/- 4 gold sets weighing 40 tolas, 8 gold bangles weighing 10 tolas and Rs.1,12,500/- as Shagun from the side of the girl who gathered.
Accused No.4 Vikas Gulati - given one double bed, one sofa set, dining table.
Accused No.5 Neha Gulati - given 10 hot Bistras and pillows and 10 cold Bistras and pillows.
Accused No.6 Sarika - given one silver set (Lemon Set), steel utensils and crockery.
Accused No.7 Mamta - given one pair of gold ear rings weighing one tola."
So far as the role of present petitioners and strong motive alleged against them are concerned, the allegations levelled in the FIR read as under :-
" My grand-father gave Rs.5,00,000/- to my husband in my presence and in the presence of my parental family members Surinder Singh S/o Kartar Singh and Rajinder Kumar S/o Chiman Lal, residents of Ferozepur City who Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 6 had come to meet my grandfather. Myself and my husband came to Noida with that money. Thereafter they kept silent for a very short time and an year after they started treating me in the same manner as earlier. About 21 months prior to this, I came to know that my husband has relation with accused No.8 and I tried to make him understand not to spoil his marriage but he turned a deaf ear and he started bring her home without any fear or reason which I could not tolerate and clearly told accused no.1 to 7 straightway that I will not tolerate such thing at any cost that he would bring unknown woman at home and take her with him but no heed was paid as they were in conspiracy with each other and told me that she will come like this and if I cannot tolerate, I can leave the house and go to her parental home. I told all this to my parents who tried to make my husband understand who gave in writing to my parents to believe that he will not meet accused No.8 and lookafter me and my child and from the side of the husband also do the same. After that writing, my husband did not mend his ways and accused no.1 to 7 started teasing and torturing me more and more and the accused No.8 started instigating the said accused persons against me for which the accused persons after giving beatings to me turned me out alongwith the child from my matrimonial home in April 2004 in three Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 7 wearing clothes and I went to my parental home at Delhi and narrated the whole incident."
Further allegation against the petitioners is that they had been prevailing upon the husband of the complainant to such an extent that the marriage was brought at the breaking point. In this regard, the allegations in the FIR read as under :-
" I have left my child at my parental home at Delhi with my relatives so that his education should not be disturbed. Thereafter 2-3 times my father alongwith Panchayati went to the accused persons but they refused to keep me and openly pronounced that the accused No.8 would come to their house. All my stridhan and gold jewellery are with accused No.1 to 7 and they refused to give the same despite demand and using the same without my permission. From time to time, the accused No.1 to 7 by forcing me and by pressurizing me got number of writings from me which I gave just to save my matrimonial home and to save themselves from maintenance they got filled income tax returns from me also according to their choice."
Having gone through the above said allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR read with the attending circumstances of the present case, this court unhesitatingly conclude that the involvement of the present Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 8 petitioners is direct and deep. It is because of the undesirable relations of accused Aarti Arora with Vishal Gulati-husband of the complainant, that the marriage of the parties has been put into danger. This court is of the view that lust knows no limits.
As far as the conduct of the petitioners, as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in his order dated 26.5.2012 (Annexure P-14) is concerned, it is crystal clear that the petitioners have not been showing due respect to the law. They had been trying to take undue advantage, whenever they were granted concession by the courts i.e. either by this court or by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, while not joining the investigation, which is one of the specific conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
In this view of the matter, the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in his order dated 26.5.2012, can be aptly referred at this stage and the same read as under :-
The perusal of the police file reveals that earlier application was moved by the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of pre arrest bail interim bail by the High Court vide order dated 31.12.2011. Applicant Vishal Gulati took benefit of interim bail from the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that he is willing to resolve the dispute amicably with complainant Ramita, her wife. Complainant Ramita can be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home or she may part gracely. Keeping in view the statement of learned counsel for Vishal Gulati, Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 9 husband of complainant. Hon'ble High Court granted interim bail so that parties may settle their dispute amicably. However, without making my efforts for ceremonies, the applicants withdrawn their pre arrest bail application on the next date of hearing i.e. 2.5.2012 after arguing the same at length. Now they have approached this court after withdrawing of their bail application from the Hon'ble High Court.
Vide order dated 21.5.2012 interim bail was granted to the applicants with the direction to join the investigation and on their appearance before the Arresting/Investigating Officer, they were ordered to be released on interim bail on furnishing their bail bonds in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in the like amount. This interim bail was granted with the consent of counsel for both the parties in order to enable both the parties to appear before the Lok Adalat today to settle the matter/matrimonial dispute between them. Both the parties were directed to appear in person in the court and it was specifically made clear that in case of failure of the appearance by the applicants, interim stay granted to them would stand vacated automatically.
Even before the Hon'ble High Court, applicants took benefit of interim bail on the ground to settle the matter between the parties by way of compromise but Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 10 before effecting compromise they withdrew their anticipatory bail application and thereafter filed the present bail application. In this court also, they took benefit of interim bail on the ground to settle the matter between the parties by way of compromise before Lok Adalat. However despite taking benefit of interim bail, neither applicants/accused joined the investigation as per directions of this court nor they have come present for compromise to settle the matter before the Lok Adalat. Rather applicants counsel stated that applicants are not ready to come to Ferozepur as they are feeling apprehension at the hands of the complainant party. This is no ground to not comply with the orders of the court. Applicants' counsel stated that even applicants are not ready to come to Ferozepur to settle the matter or to join the investigation in future on any date to be fixed by the Court. In such circumstances, conduct of the applicants who failed to join the investigation despite taking the benefit of interim bail earlier before the Ho'ble High Court and now before this court, does not entitle them for concession of bail when they are not ready to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. Therefore, their bail applications stand decline especially when allegation against them are of serious nature and their custodial interrogation is required to get Crl.Misc.No.M-17699 of 2012 11 recover the dowry articles from them."
The conduct of the parties, in given fact situation like the present one, may not be the sole determining factor, but the same cannot be ignored altogether. Nobody can be allowed to play with the justice delivery system. The conduct of the petitioners, while trying to get undue advantage of the orders passed by the courts not showing due respect to the law and the orders of the courts, has also been one of the reasons rendering the petitioners disentitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the instant petition is bereft of any merit and must fail.
No case for anticipatory bail has been made out. Dismissed.
7.6.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE