CRM-M 5355 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.9988 of 2009 and CRM-M 5355 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.10.2009 Rajwant Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondent/State. Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. CRM No.9988 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.') in case FIR No.22 dated 13.1.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, District Patiala. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Jaspal Singh against three accused namely, Rajwant Singh (petitioner), Jeet Singh and Sinder Kaur (non-applicant) in which he has alleged that his daughter Manjit Kaur was married to petitioner on 15.3.1998. At the time of marriage, he had spent Rs.8-10 lacs and dowry articles were entrusted to CRM-M 5355 of 2009 -2- accused No.1 to 3. Out of the wedlock, two children were born aged 9 years and 8 years respectively. It is further alleged that the petitioner had asked the complainant's daughter that he has been given small gold `Kara' at the time of marriage. On the asking of his daughter, the complainant gave big gold `Kara'. It is also alleged that the petitioner was given motor cycle which has been sold by him. It is alleged in the FIR that on 8.8.2007, he had dropped her daughter Manjit Kaur to her matrimonial home where she was given beatings by her mother-in-law Sinder Kaur and her husband (petitioner). On 9.8.2007, she was turned out of her matrimonial home. In nut-shell, it is alleged that for the sake of dowry ,the petitioner has subjected her daughter to cruelty and harassment. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed on 19.2.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that marriage of the petitioner and Manjit Kaur was solemnised on 15.3.1998. A girl child was born in the year 2000 whereas a boy was born in the year 2001. Manjit Kaur had left the matrimonial home with her own accord on 10.8.2007, therefore, the petitioner had filed petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act' ) for restitution of conjugal rights in which Manjit Kaur had appeared on 16.7.2008 but refused to join matrimonial home as a result of which reconciliation proceedings failed. However, as a counter-blast, the present FIR has been lodged by the father of Manjit Kaur on 13.7.2009. It is also submitted that both Jeet Singh and Sinder Kaur (non-applicant) have been granted bail by this Court in CRM CRM-M 5355 of 2009 -3- M-2983 of 2009. It is also submitted that at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 2.3.2009, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac by way of draft in the name of Manjit Kaur in lieu of dowry articles which were to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the said draft has already been deposited with the Investigating Officer but it has not been taken by Manjit Kaur. On 23.4.2009, this Court had found that the matter can be resolved between the parties, therefore, the case was sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court where after parley of sittings, no fruitful result came out and the mediation proceedings failed. As such, the present case was returned to this Court for decision on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that most of the dowry articles have already been recovered whereas counsel for the State has submitted that gold ornaments are yet to be recovered. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that after 11 years of marriage, it cannot be believed that jewellery of Manjit Kaur is lying with the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant has submitted that Manjit Kaur had filed an application under Section 9 of the Act in which maintenance was fixed but the same was not paid by the petitioner and has withdrawn application under Section 9 of the Act after his arrest has been stayed by this Court on 2.3.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 2.3.2009, the petitioner has already joined the investigation which fact is not denied by the counsel for the State. From the resume of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that there CRM-M 5355 of 2009 -4- are temperamental differences between the petitioner and his wife, who carried on their matrimonial home for 11 years together and gave birth to two children who are now living with Manjit Kaur. Since most of the dowry articles have already been recovered and by order of this Court, draft of Rs.1 lac is already lying with the Investigating Officer in lieu of dowry, I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, order dated 2.3.2009 is hereby made absolute. It is however, made clear that any observation made herein shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of case. Draft of Rs.1 lac which is lying with the Investigating Officer shall be handed over by him to the daughter of the complainant, namely, Manjit Kaur within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 15.10.2009 Judge Meenu