IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc. Petition No.M-19365 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.9.2009 Jagdeep Singh alias Deepak. ....... Petitioner through Shri L.M.Gulati, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab. ....... Respondent through Shri B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General. Ms.Deipa Asdhir Dubey, Advocate for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, `the Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide F.I.R.No.54 dated 4.6.2009 under Sections 498-A, 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for brevity, `the I.P.C.') and subsequently added Sections 406, 109 of the I.P.C., Police Station, Dayalpura, Bathinda. According to the F.I.R., the allegations against the petitioner are that at the time of his marriage with the complainant on 19.5.2008, a Crl.Misc.Petition No.M-19365 of 2009 -2- .... number of jewellery and other articles were given to him and his family members. On 21.5.2008, the petitioner left the complainant at her parental house while taking away all the articles which were given to him and his family members as well as to her. While returning from the marriage, the car had also met with an accident, and then the petitioner demanded Rs.2.5 lacs for getting it repaired on the pretext that he had lost his credit card. However, a sum of Rs.2 lacs was given to him by the father of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to Delhi along with the petitioner. The behavior of the petitioner was always bordering on suspicion as he never gave any address of India nor gave the address of his relative and she was also not permitted to talk to the neighbours in Dwarka, Delhi (House No.46) where she was taken by him. The house was taken on lease and Rs.30,000/- were paid as earnest money which was withdrawn by the complainant from her account with State Bank through ATM. However, on the lease dated 30.5.2008, the petitioner got his name written as Harsimran Singh, whereas at the time of marriage, he had disclosed his name as Jagdeep Singh. He also advised the complainant to disclose to the landlord that the petitioner stays in Dubai to explain as a reason why the said flat was taken in her name and which flat was also near the place of her work. She was also subjected to harassment by the other relations of the petitioner, i.e., mother and sister for bringing insufficient dowry and it was repeatedly told to her that he wishes to start a hotel and so, she should bring Rs.20 lacs from her parents. She was also threatened that her brother will be kidnapped and then probably her parents would organize Rs.20 lacs to be Crl.Misc.Petition No.M-19365 of 2009 -3- .... paid to the petitioner. She was also harassed continuously and since August,2008, the petitioner stopped coming to her at Delhi and stated that he had purchased a kothi in Chandigarh and he was getting the same repaired and was starting a business in partnership with someone. On 15.8.2008, the complainant came to meet her parents and told everything to them and thereafter, her mother accompanied her to Delhi. A telephonic call was given to the petitioner to come to Delhi upon which he stated that he was already in Delhi and he would come to the house. He visited the house, but he did not talk to the mother of the complainant. In the morning when he was confronted with his conduct, he stated that they have not given any thing at the time of marriage and if they wanted divorce, they were free to do so. Thereafter, he abandoned the house by taking away his belongings upon which the complaint was lodged. The F.I.R. with the aforementioned allegations stands registered against the petitioner and others. On 20.7.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was willing to settle the matter and is ready to return all the articles belonging to the complainant. Upon this, notice of motion was issued. On 30.7.2009, this Court granted interim protection to the petitioner to enable him to join the investigation and also directed the parties to remain present in order to explore the possibility of settlement primarily being concerned that it is a marital dispute. The parties are present in Court today, but apparently there Crl.Misc.Petition No.M-19365 of 2009 -4- .... seems to be no possibility of any settlement inter se between them. On a pointed query, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from H.C.Sparan Singh, stated that only one ring has been returned by the petitioner and he has not handed over any other item. He also referred to the serious allegations against the petitioner wherein he has been alleged to have tried to project his identity of a different person. He, thus, contended that the matter requires serious investigation as possibility of the complainant having been duped by the petitioner cannot be ruled out, more so when the parties had come closer through the medium of internet and before that, they wee totally unknown to each other. Learned counsel for the complainant has also reiterated the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State, while the complainant, who is present in Court, has expressed serious fraud to which she has been subjected to by narrating the whole story. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there appears to be some content and substance in the allegations made in the complaint and that the matter requires thorough investigation. The possibility of the complaint being duped at this stage cannot be ruled out. Besides, the bona fides of the petitioner by just returning one ring comes seriously under a cloud, more so when he has not denied that some jewellery articles were given to him at the time of marriage, even though the extent thereof has been disputed by him. In this view of the matter, the Court does not feel inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner considering the fact that the provisions of Crl.Misc.Petition No.M-19365 of 2009 -5- .... Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. are meant to prevent the abuse of the process of law and not to protect a person who is embroiled in serious controversy and is facing equally serious allegations. No ground to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. Hence, the instant petition is dismissed. September 11,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge