IN THE HIGH COUR OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-13219 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.4.2010 Kulwinder Pal …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120 B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of the complainant Rachna Rani @ Ritu Bala. It has been alleged by the complainant Rachna Rani @ Ritu Bala that she was married to the petitioner on 26.11.2000. From the said marriage, they have two children namely Vishal and Jagriti. The Petitioner Kulwinder Pal- Crl. Misc. No. M-13219 of 2009 [2] husband of the complainant, father-in-law Amar Pal, brother-in-law Varinder Kumar and Manjit Rani, mother-in-law in connivance with each other had been beating the complainant for dowry. The parents of the complainant as per their capacity have spent Rs.4/5 lacs and under pressure of the in-laws of the complainant, they had given enough dowry which includes household articles i.e. T.V, fridge, furniture, gold ornaments and costly clothes. The accused were also given cash amount apart from gold ornaments and costly clothes. The accused, it is stated, are very greedy and they troubled the complainant for bringing inadequate dowry. They had given her a beating on many occasions and thrown her out of the house. The Panchayats were held and in their presence, the accused were paid Rs.20,000/- on one occasion and Rs.30,000/- on another occasion by the father of the complainant. It was requested that the complainant was very poor and they could not give more money but the accused continued to beat the complainant. In July 2008, Varinder Kumar, brother-in-law of the complainant committed excesses on the complainant and then threatened her that in case she raised an alarm, she would be axed with a sword. When the complainant told her husband Kulwinder Pal (petitioner) about this, they got together and started beating her and stated that she was a liar. The father-in-law of the complainant kept a bad eye on her. On 23.8.2008, the accused beat the complainant and threw her out of the house. They had taken away her son Vishal Sharma from her but the daughter Jagriti was allowed to be kept by her. The complainant was residing with her parents and she requested that action be taken. Crl. Misc. No. M-13219 of 2009 [3] The petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 18.5.2009 which has been extended from time to time. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that despite the petitioner joining the investigation, he has not got any article recovered. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the petitioner refused to accept summons and he is being proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 5.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. Besides, the father of the petitioner has filed a frivolous complaint against the petitioner at Ferozepur. Even after filing a joint petition by the petitioner and the complainant for grant of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner filed a complaint against the complainant and her family members in which they were summoned. The complainant then approached this Court by filing Crl. Misc. No. M-10395 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 7.4.2010 issued notice of motion and exempted the personal appearance of the complainant and her family members before the learned trial Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on 5.8.2009 and the statements of the parties were recorded on 4.10.2009. However, the complainant did not get her statement recorded on 15.2.2010 at the time of second motion and the petition has been withdrawn. Considerable emphasis has been laid on the fact that it is stated that in Para 4 of the said joint petition, that all Crl. Misc. No. M-13219 of 2009 [4] dowry articles have been recovered. It may however be noticed that in case recovery had been effected in the investigation that has been carried out, a recovery memo would have been prepared and drawn up. The said averments in the joint petition seeking divorce it appears were made for the purpose of resolving the matrimonial dispute. The joint petition has been withdrawn. Therefore, the averments as made are of not much consequence. In any case it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said petition, it is accepted by the complainant that matter had been amicably settled. A reference is also made to the proceedings at Women Cell at Faridkot dated 9.9.2008 (Annexure P5) in which it is mentioned that compromise between both the parties had been effected in the Panchayat and the applicant (complainant) Rachan Rani @ Ritu Bala does not want to proceed further. It is also stated by the complainant that she had leveled all false allegations. It may, however, be noticed that at one stage the matter had been compromised. The petitioner had agreed in the joint petition to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant felt that the said sum was grossly inadequate for the maintenance of the complainant and her daughter and therefore, the consent was withdrawn. Be that as it may, insofar as the present petition is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been appearing and joining the investigation. However, he has not got anything recovered till date. There are specific allegations in the FIR that dowry articles and other costly items were given to him at the time of marriage. However, nothing has been got recovered till date. Besides, no recovery memo has been Crl. Misc. No. M-13219 of 2009 [5] drawn up in the investigation with regard to the recoveries that may have been made. The averments made in the joint petition for divorce were to conclude the matter, which petition has since been withdrawn. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE April 26, 2010 amit