IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-49635 of 2007 Date of decision: 11.3.2010 Gurmeet Singh and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for petitioners No.1 and 2. Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate for petitioner No.3. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate and Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail to them in a case that has been registered against them on 7.10.2007 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 342, 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and Sections 406 and 308 IPC which were added later. The petitioners are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the complainant Satwinder Kaur. The complainant Satwinder Kaur wife of Manmohan Singh lodged the FIR inter alia stating that her marriage was solemnized with Manmohan Singh on 30.1.2005. The complainant and Manmohan Singh had a daughter from the said marriage. The husband of the complainant Crl. Misc. No. M-49635 of 2007 [2] namely Manmohan Singh had before their marriage been residing abroad in Italy. About one month after marriage, the husband of the complainant went abroad. Thereafter, the father-in-law Gurmeet Singh (petitioner No.1), mother-in-law Surjit Kaur (petitioner No.2) and sister-in-law Narinder Kaur (petitioner No.3) started taunting the complainant and even beat her up on account of her bringing inadequate dowry. A panchayat was also convened to resolve the matter but the petitioners did not listen. After about 5-6 months, the husband of the complainant came back and he lived peacefully with her for sometime. However, on the asking of his parents (petitioners No.1 and 2), he started beating the complainant and said that she should go to her parents house and he did not want to keep her. They all asked the complainant to leave the house, besides, they harassed her. After about one month, the husband of the complainant again went abroad and her mother- in-law Surjit Kaur (petitioner No.2) and father-in-law Gurmeet Singh (petitioner No.1) started harassing her and demanded dowry. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant again came to India in March 2007. At that time, the complainant had gone to her parents’ house to meet them. When the complainant came to know that her husband had come then she along with her father came back to her in-law’s house and her father returned back to Santokhpura after leaving her. In the month of April, the complainant along with her husband, mother-in-law (petitioner No.2) and father-in-law (petitioner No.1) went to Jalandhar to meet the sister-in-law (petitioner No.3) of the complainant and they stayed there for a night. On the next day, they came back to their house. Thereafter, the mother-in-law (petitioner No.2), father-in-law (petitioner No.1) and husband of the complainant started taunting her and demanded more dowry. The mother-in-law caught hold the complainant from her hair and her father-in-law and her husband Crl. Misc. No. M-49635 of 2007 [3] gave fist blows and slapped her. They put pressure on the complainant to leave the house. Thereafter, the husband went abroad and the mother-in- law (petitioner No.2) and the father-in-law (petitioner No.1) of the complainant started pressurizing her to leave the house but the complainant continued to live in the house of her in-laws for four months. On 2.8.2007, when the complainant was in the house of her in-laws, her sister-in-law Narinder Kaur (petitioner No.3) had come from Punjab. They all together caught hold of the complainant and beat her up and compelled her to sign some blank papers for divorce. The complainant did not sign on the blank white papers. Thereafter, the mother-in-law (petitioner No.2), father-in-law (petitioner No.1) and sister-in-law (petitioner No.3) of the complainant beat her with ‘danda’. They gave ‘danda’ blows on her head and they compelled her to drink milk in which a poisonous substance had been mixed but the complainant did not take the milk. The father-in-law (petitioner No.1), mother-in-law (petitioner No.2) and sister-in-law (petitioner No.3) of the complainant detained her in a room and on the next day, Tarsem Singh and Gurcharan Singh, brother and uncle respectively of the complainant got her released from them. The complainant submitted an application to the Police Station and requested for legal action being taken against the petitioners. She had suffered injuries and her medical examination was also conducted at Lok Narain Jai Parkash (LNJP) Hospital, Kurukshetra. After registration of the case, petitioners No.1 and 2 applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra which was declined vide order dated 18.10.2007 (Annexure P1). Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no offence under Sections 406, 498-A, 308, 323, 342 and 506 IPC is made out Crl. Misc. No. M-49635 of 2007 [4] against the petitioners and they have been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that the dispute in fact is between the husband and wife. The complainant wanted to accompany her husband who made every effort to take her abroad. However, she started quarrelling with her husband. It is submitted that a separate mess was also arranged for the complainant because she had started misbehaving with the petitioners. The petitioners also gave a public notice to the effect that they have no connection with their son Manmohan Singh and their daughter-in-law Satwinder Kaur (complainant). A separate ration card (Annexure P2) has been placed on record. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is a retired bank officer aged about 61 years and petitioner No.2 is aged about 58 years. Petitioner No.3 is married sister of the husband of the complainant. She was married at Jalandhar on 28.2.2001 i.e. before the marriage of the complainant with Manmohan Singh. Petitioner No.3 is residing in her matrimonial home which is at a distance of about 210 kms from Kurukshetra and there was no occasion for her to demand any dowry or to maltreat the complainant. The entire allegations, it is submitted, are concocted and false. In response, learned State counsel and counsel for the complainant have submitted that despite the petitioners being granted interim bail by this Court on 30.10.2007, the petitioners have not made any effort to get the articles recovered. Besides, they have been making false plea of settling the matter. It is submitted that despite giving assurance for the past two years that they would call Manmohan Singh to India, they have not been able to call him and the petitioners are unnecessarily delaying the matter. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the Crl. Misc. No. M-49635 of 2007 [5] records. The allegations against the petitioners are that they had been beating the complainant. The complainant has given specific date and time when she was beaten; besides, she has produced her medical examination that was conducted at the LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. The petitioners were granted interim bail initially by this Court on 30.10.2007. It was contended that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, besides, there was no allegations of any entrustment as per the FIR. It was contended that the injuries were manipulated. It may, however, be noticed that the husband of the complainant namely Manmohan Singh is in Italy. Besides, the recovery of dowry articles has not been fully effected till date. In terms of the order dated 12.11.2007, the prayer for pre-arrest bail was inter alia opposed on the ground that the recoveries had not been effected. The petitioners were accordingly directed to join the investigation and in case of their doing so, they were ordered to be released on bail. However, the said order, it was observed, would not prejudice the rights of the investigating agency to effect recoveries of the articles alleged to have been entrusted to the petitioners or to Manmohan Singh. Thereafter, on 26.11.2007, on the request of learned counsel for the complainant, the matter was adjourned as there were chances of amicable settlement between the complainant and her husband Manmohan Singh. On 28.2.2008 it was submitted by counsel for the complainant that husband of the complainant was in Italy and there may be chances of reconciliation only if he returns back. The case was adjourned to 21.5.2008. On the said date on request of counsel for petitioners it was adjourned to 12.8.2008. On 12.8.2008, an offer was made on behalf of the petitioners that they were willing to part with some money, besides, return the car which stands registered in the name of the Crl. Misc. No. M-49635 of 2007 [6] complainant. However, the stand of the complainant was that she wants to join her matrimonial home once again provided her husband comes back from Italy for a short period. The complainant side had referred to affidavits of certain respectables and common relatives, wherein they had stated that they would make earnest efforts to obtain the presence of the complainant’s husband in India, so that the parties may sort out their differences. The affidavits produced on behalf of the complainant were taken on record and the case was adjourned to 27.11.2008. The case was then taken up on 27.11.2008. On that date learned State counsel stated on instructions that though the petitioners had joined the investigations but they had not cooperated in the matter of recovery of dowry articles. The said stance was stated to be incorrect by the learned counsel for the petitioners who stated that the petitioners had volunteered to hand over the dowry articles but it was the complainant side which refused to accept the articles. A reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to a report dated 22.11.2007 recorded by SHO, Police Station Jhansa. This Court, however, observed that it was neither here nor there for the Investigating Agency to say that the complainant had refused to accept the dowry articles as it is the police which had to recover the dowry articles first. The petitioners were directed to hand over the dowry articles on 29.11.2008 at 10.00 am. The case was then taken up on 01.12.2008 and on the said date learned State counsel informed that the petitioners had handed over only four dowry items to the complainant out of the total list of 48 items. The complainant who was present in Court submitted that she was sure that if her husband who is based in Italy came, he would take her along. The case was adjourned and it was directed in the totality of the circumstances that the petitioners must take steps to secure the presence of Manmohan Singh in the Court on the Crl. Misc. No. M-49635 of 2007 [7] next date of hearing. The complainant, it is mentioned, in order to show her bone fides had also submitted that she would be willing to even bear half the expenditure i.e. expenditure for her husband to come to India. The case was then taken up on 16.12.2008 and on joint request it was adjourned to 23.12.2008. Annexures P11 to P20 were, however, taken on record. On 23.12.2008, on written request for adjournment on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the case was adjourned to 13.1.2009. On that date, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in terms of order dated 1.12.2008 the complainant had deposited in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Kurukshetra half the amount of travel expenses of her husband for him to travel from Italy to India. Learned counsel for the petitioners were, however, not clear whether the husband of the complainant would appear or not. They sought time to seek instructions. The case was then taken up on 6.2.2009 on which date it was submitted by the petitioners that the husband of the complainant was unable to come from Italy to India in view of his contractual commitments. The case ordered to be listed for arguments on 26.2.2009. The case was then adjourned on request on 26.2.2009 to 20.4.2009. On the said date on request it was adjourned to 28.4.2009. On 28.4.2009, learned counsel for the complainant again submitted that if husband of the complainant comes then there could be a settlement. Besides, the complainant had deposited half the amount of fare for the travel of her husband from Italy to India. It was observed that on 6.2.2009 it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners No.1 and 2 that their son Manmohan Singh was unable to come in view of his contractual commitments. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners and the complainant, the matter was referred to the Mediation centre. The proceedings before the mediation centre were taken on various Crl. Misc. No. M-49635 of 2007 [8] dates. However, no settlement could be reached at. On 8.2.2010 it was observed that despite all best efforts, parties could not reach at an amicable settlement. The case after mediation proceedings was returned back to this Court. In the facts and circumstances, it may be noticed that the complainant has on more than one occasion submitted that the matter would settle if her husband returns to India. She also deposited half the fare for his travel. However, the husband of the complainant despite lapse of considerable time of about two years has not returned. The petitioners even have been unnecessarily delaying the matter and getting the case adjourned on one pretext or the other. On the various dates on which the cases had been adjourned, the petitioners had given out and represented that they will make efforts to secure the presence of Manmohan Singh husband of the complainant. However, despite that Manmohan Singh has not appeared in Court for an amicable settlement of the matter. It is stated that he could not come because of his contractual commitments. However, the nature of the contractual commitments has not been furnished. Besides, all the dowry articles have not been recovered. The complainant has leveled serious allegations of ill-treatment in connection with demand for dowry. Moreover, she herself had suffered injuries. The question whether these were self-inflicted or were genuine is not to be gone into in the present proceedings. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE 11.3.2010 amit