Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 May, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CRM-M No. 31828 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 31828 of 2013.
Date of Decision : 14.05.2014.
Gurpreet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. G.C. Bedi, Advocate for the complainant.
***
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of the CRM-M No. 31828 of 2013 titled as 'Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another' and CRM-M No. 29144 of 2013 titled as 'Rajinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab' as both these petitions have been preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s) in case FIR No. 10 dated 8.8.2013, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Counsel for the parties have been heard.
The complainant in these cases is Ravneet Kaur i.e. wife of Gurpreet Singh and daughter-in-law of Rajinder Kaur i.e. the present petitioners.
On 11.10.2013, while issuing notice of motion in CRM-M No. 31828 of 2013, the following order was passed by this Court :- Kanchan 2014.05.19 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No. 31828 of 2013 2 "Crl. Misc. No. 43458 of 2013
For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. Complainant Ravneet Kaur, is hereby, impleaded as respondent No. 2.
Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Crl. Misc. No. M-31828 of 2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner got married to respondent No. 2 on 23.01.2011. As the parties could not pull on, they agreed to file a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petition was, accordingly, prepared and signed by both the parties but could not be filed as a period of one year had not elapsed from the date of their marriage.
Lateron, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(1- A) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court at Nagpur. In the said petition, respondent No. 2 did not put in appearance despite service of summons upon her and she was proceeded against ex parte. Ultimately, after recording the evidence, the Family Court at Nagpur allowed the aforementioned petition and dissolved marriage of the parties on 23.10.2012 by a decree of divorce.
Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab and respondent No. 2 for 08.11.2013.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 23.10.2013 at 11.00 am for joining the investigation. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner be admitted to ad interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by all conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."
Insofar as CRM-M No. 29144 of 2013 is concerned, preferred by the mother-in-law of the complainant, the following order was passed by this Court while issuing notice of motion on 03.09.2013 :-
"It is inter alia contended that petitioner is the mother-in-Kanchan 2014.05.19 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No. 31828 of 2013 3
law of the complainant and there was no allegation of beating against her in the FIR.
Notice of motion for 8.11.2013.
Meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, she shall be released on bail by the Arresting/Investigating Officer. She shall abide by the conditions as enshrined in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."
Learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Narender Sood would apprise the Court that both the petitioners have since joined the investigation. Both learned State counsel as also counsel appearing for the complainant are ad-idem that even though some recovery of the alleged dowry articles/gifts have been effected but certain gold ornaments in the nature of one gold ring(new), one gold ring(old), one gold chain and two gold bangles are yet to be recovered from the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these connected petitions would make submission that the petitioners are willing to furnish the security equivalent to such articles before the Ilaqua Magistrate subject to outcome of the investigation.
During the course of hearing, a consensus has been arrived between counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the complainant that the approximate value of such articles which are yet to be recovered would be `1 lac.
Accordingly, Gurpreet Singh i.e. petitioner in CRM-M No. 31828 of 2013 is directed to deposit `1 lac within a period of 10 days from today by way of demand draft in the name of the complainant Ravneet Kaur before the Illaqa Magistrate concerned by way of security.
The petitioners, otherwise, having already joined investigation are held entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Kanchan 2014.05.19 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No. 31828 of 2013 4 Resultantly, both the petitions are allowed. Order dated 11.10.2013 passed in CRM-M No. 31828 of 2013 and order dated 03.09.2013 in CRM-M No. 29144 of 2013 are made absolute.
Petitions disposed of.
May 14, 2014. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
kanchan JUDGE
Kanchan
2014.05.19 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh