Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Arvind Singh Mejie vs Ut Chandigarh on 1 February, 2023
SANDEEP CRM-M-24775-2021 -l- 273 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24775-2021 Date of Decision:- 01.02.2023 JAI ARVIND SINGH MEJIE ....Petitioner Vs. UT CHANDIGARH ...Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Robin Singh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Anand, APP, U.T. Chandigarh. Mr.Randeep Singh Rai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Iknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate for the complainant. 3 2 2fe 2c ie AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral)
The petitioner -- Jai Arvind Singh Mejie has filed the instant petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.32 dated 02.06.2021 under sections 406, 498-A, 323 IPC (Section 494 IPC added later-on) registered at police station Chandigarh.
The facts of the case are that the complainant Geetan Mejie filed written complaint to SSP Headquarter, Sector-9, Chandigarh alleging that she got married with Jai Arvind Singh Mejie and out of this wedlock she is having two children, daughter 10 years and son 8 years old. Since from the beginning of marriage she was harassed, abused and ill treated by her husband under the influence of liquor. She was also beaten up in front of 2023.02.07 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDEEP CRM-M-24775-2021 -2- her children. Thereafter, she left the house and she did not provide any maintenance. The husband was roaming with another girl in front of her family and friends. She was mentally harassed and her children were also scared. Her husband saw child porn movie in front of their daughter as a result she was upset. He also used to maintain physical relations forcibly. He tried his daughter to talk to his new girl friend. Her in-laws are also by the side of her husband. With these allegations the present FIR was registered under Section 406, 498-A and 323 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that all the allegations levelled against him are false. Both the petitioner and the complainant belong to reputed families and they enjoy high reputation in the society. All the allegations regarding maltreatment and demand of dowry are false. The complainant was always treated with love and affection. In-fact after marriage the complainant was given costly gifts and they travelled abroad several times. After sometime they sold their house situated in Sector-21D, Chandigarh and shifted to rented premise in Section-9, Chandigarh. The accommodation was insufficient so he along-with his wife and children shifted to House No.66, First Floor, Sector-9 Chandigarh. The complainant suspected his affair with one of her friend and because of this reason the dispute started. She was suggested to consult marriage counselor or a psychiatrist but she refused. She was insisting for divorce. She left the matrimonial home thrice and every time she was brought back. All the efforts to settle the dispute failed. The complainant has filed false complaint after receiving notice in a divorce case. She also filed complaint under domestic violence Act. The complainant has been allowed to live in a portion of the premises where his sick old parents are residing. All the allegations of demand of dowry and refusal to return the same are without 2023.02.07 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDEEP CRM-M-24775-2021 -3- any basis. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. In support of bail application, the petitioner has also placed on record the photographs of his wife Annexure P-1. The divorce case filed by the petitioner is Annexure P-2. He has also placed on record the photographs where the petitioner was beaten up in a public place on 17.10.2022 and a complaint is also filed in this regard to the police. The photographs produced on record are Annexures A-1 to A-4. He prayed that his anticipatory bail may be allowed. Learned senior counsel for the complainant argued that the matrimonial dispute has started because of the conduct of the petitioner himself. He started having extramarital affairs. The entire family and friends of both the parties are fully aware of this fact. It is argued that he has performed marriage with another lady during the subsistence of present marriage. The complainant was beaten up and maltreated in the matrimonial home in the presence of children and servants working in the house. Under these compelled circumstances the complaint was filed to the Police. Counsel for the complainant has also placed on record the copies of certain photographs Annexure R2/1. Due to the matrimonial dispute civil litigation has also started. Till date the petitioner has neither cooperated in the investigation nor he has recovered the dowry articles. In-fact he tried to escape from the court proceedings by going abroad. It is prayed that his anticipatory bail may be dismissed.
Learned counsel representing the State confirmed that the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation. Dowry articles are yet to be recovered. He stated that that his presence is required for investigation of the case. Therefore, his anticipatory bail may be declined.
I have considered the arguments and have gone through the 2023.02.07 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24775-2021 -4- record. The present FIR has been registered with the allegations of maltreatment in the matrimonial home as well as misappropriating her dowry articles. There is detailed list of dowry articles. It is further claimed that the petitioner has performed marriage during the subsistence of first marriage. During the pendency of the present bail application the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre but no amicable settlement took place. The perusal of file indicates that till date the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigating Agency. It is also mentioned in the file that during the pendency of present bail application the petitioner was directed to surrender his passport as it was apprehended that he may go abroad. Both civil and criminal litigation has started between the parties. The allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 complainant are specific and serious in nature. He is required to join the investigation. Recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected. Therefore, considering the conduct of the present petitioner, in my opinion, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail and the same is, accordingly, declined.
01.02.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI) snd JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable: Yes/No SANDEEP 2023.02.07 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document