Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puja Goel And Another vs State Of Haryana on 23 October, 2013
CRM-M-34999 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-34999 of 2013
Date of Decision : 23.10.2013
Puja Goel and another .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. N.V.S. Kohli, Advocate
for the complainant.
R.P. NAGRATH, J.
Petitioners seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 483 dated 19.09.2013 for offences under Section 354(D),379, 406, 420, 448, 467, 468, 471, 498, 510 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Ambala City, Ambala.
Petitioner No. 1 is daughter-in-law of the complainant and petitioner No. 2 is father of petitioner No. 1. Compliant filed before the Magistrate was forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and FIR was registered. There are various allegations made in the complaint about illicit relations of petitioner No. 1 with Parveen Bajaj, who was junior in rank to Tarun Goel, the Jitender Kumar 2013.10.29 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-34999 of 2013 -2- son of the complainant and husband of petitioner No. 1 in the Insurance Company, where they were working. It was stated that out of the said illicit relation petitioner No. 1 conceived but those pregnancies were got aborted by her. For the third time she again conceived out of the said illicit affair and a daughter was born. It is further stated that Petitioner No. 1 candidly admitted that fact. There are also the allegations that petitioner No. 1 had got sale deeds of certain properties in her name by persuading her husband for the same and withdrew the amount from the joint account.
The relevant fact on merit to dispose of the prayer for pre-arrest bail relates to removal of 50 tolas of jewellery by petitioner No. 1 from the joint Bank locker obtained jointly with the complainant. Although, it was stated in the FIR that petitioner No. 1 last operated the locker in November, 2012 but the document of the Bank shows that locker was last time operated by petitioner No. 1 in November, 2011. The above discrepancy, however, is not material at this stage. It is indisputable that the locker could be operated by either or survivors. Petitioner No. 2 is working in the Bank and the said fraud is stated to have been committed with his connivance.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant moved an application dated 01.07.2013 to the Bank Manager but operation of the locker was refused to her on the ground that the locker is in the single name of petitioner No. 1. However, an information was obtained under RTI Act on Jitender Kumar 2013.10.29 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-34999 of 2013 -3- 05.10.2013 that the locker is in the joint name and mode of operation is by any one of the joint lessee. It was also informed that there has not been any change in the mode of operation so far and it is the same from the beginning till date. The petitioners themselves attached Annexure P-4, a letter from the Bank Manager that the locker stands in the name of complainant and petitioner No. 1, which was last operated on 18.11.2011. There was then no question for Bank Manager in refusing the complainant from operating the locker on the ground that it was in the single name of petitioner No. 1.
Learned State counsel also contended that recovery of 50 tolas of jewellery is yet to be made from petitioner No. 1. It is further contended that ration card of the family was also forged for obtaining SIM card by petitioner No. 1. There is also a writing (Annexure P-3) of a compromise dated 06.02.2013 between Parveen Bajaj aforesaid, the complainant and her son. Parveen Bajaj admitted in the said compromise deed that he will not send any abuses, taunting or vulgar messages or sms to Tarun Goel or any member of the family or will not visit or come near or in the street of Motinagar. The compromise is stated to have been executed without any pressure and with mutual consent. It was undertaken that if in future Parveen Bajaj commits any illegal act then legal action can be initiated against him.
No ground for grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner No. 1 and application qua petitioner No. 1 is dismissed. Jitender Kumar 2013.10.29 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-34999 of 2013 -4-
In the facts and circumstance of the case, prayer of pre- arrest bail to petitioner No. 2 is allowed and he is directed to appear before the investigating officer on 06.11.2013 and will keep on joining the investigation and cooperate with the same. Petitioner No. 2 would also abide by the conditions enshrined in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. In case petitioner No. 2 does not appear before the investigating officer on the date stipulated above, the concession granted to him by this order shall stands vacated.
This petition qua petitioner No. 1 is dismissed and allowed in the above terms qua petitioner No. 2.
October 23, 2013 (R.P. NAGRATH )
jk JUDGE
Jitender Kumar
2013.10.29 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh