Crl.M.No. M-31727/2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No. M-31727/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 29.10.2010. Salim Khan ....................Petitioner v. State of Punjab. .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Mohd.Salim,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J. Prayer under Section 438 Cr.PC is for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of petitioner-husband in case FIR No.88 dated 16.5.2010 under Sections 498-A,406,506 IPC, PS City Malerkotla,Distt.Sangrur. As per allegations contained in the FIR lodged by complainant-wife Farha Naz, her marriage was solemnised with petitioner 9 years back and out of the said wedlock two sons were born. It is alleged that though sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage, despite that petitioner and his family members kept harassing the complainant for bringing more dowry. Firstly a demand of Rs.30,000/- was made for purchasing a truck which was met by the parents of the complainant. Second time another demand of Crl.M.No. M-31727/2010(O&M) 2 Rs.50,000/- was made for purchase of a motorcycle. Since the said demand was not fulfilled by the parents of the complainant, the petitioner gave beatings to the complainant and turned her out of her matrimonial home on 15.11.2009 and was told to return back only with more dowry. The petitioner is also alleged to have solemnised second marriage with one Amandeep Kaur daughter of Baljinder Singh. It is also alleged that father of the complainant alongwith Panchayat members tried to amicably solve the matter but petitioner and his family members flately refused to rehabilitate the complainant in her matrimonial home. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact that the instant FIR was lodged after 9 years of the marriage points towards the fallacity of the allegations. It is next submitted that as regards second marriage, since the petitioner belongs to Muslim community the same does not amount to cruelty.Reliance has been placed on Shakuntla v. State of Delhi 2007(2) HLR 213. However, I find no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel. In the cited case petitioner had laid challenge to framing of charges under Section 406 IPC framed against the petitioner accused therein as the material relied upon by the accused in that case was not considered at the time of framing of charges. The facts of the cited case have no similarity with the present case, as the petitioner-husband, herein is seeking anticipatory bail and is not aggrieved of the charges Crl.M.No. M-31727/2010(O&M) 3 framed against her. It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR in question has been made with a malafide intention to rope in the entire family. Reliance was placed upon Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another v. Monica, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 866. In my opinion, the cited case law has not application to the facts of the present case where husband and not his family members viz. Mother, father, sister or brother are seeking quashing of the summoning order, as was the case in the cited case law. In the case in hand, the complainant has levelled specific allegations against her husband and other family members that she used to harass her for want of more dowry and on account of non-fulfillment of that demand, she was turned out of her matrimonial home. Similarly, I find that the judgment of Delhi High Court in Shashi Kapoor v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 18 has no application to the facts of the present case as in the cited case, wife of the younger brother of the father-in-law of the complainant ( i.e. aunt of the husband) had approached the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail. In the instant petition the petitioner-husband is seeking anticipatory bail. He alongwith his family members is accused of harassing complainant wife for bring more dowry. The complainant was allegedly turned out of her matrimonial home and petitioner has Crl.M.No. M-31727/2010(O&M) 4 performed second marriage. In these circumstances, in my opinion, for free and fair investigation of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Dismissed. 29.10.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge