Criminal Misc.No. M-17155 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. M-17155 of 2010 Date of decision:- 13.9.2010 Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl.A.G. Punjab. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.131, dated 25.7.2006, under Sections 406,498-A,323,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief facts are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.10.2003 as per Sikh rites. At the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given and entrusted to the petitioner-accused. However, petitioner-husband and and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry. They mis-appropriated her dowry articles. A maruti car was also given in the dowry to the petitioner-husband, which was sold by him without consent of the complainant to his uncle Nirmal Singh. Harassment of the complainant started on account of dowry. A son was born out of the wedlock in the year 2005. She was also Criminal Misc.No. M-17155 of 2010 -2- given beatings by petitioner-accused and by other family members. A panchayat was convened to settle the dispute. It is admitted case of both the parties that in the panchayat compromise Annexure P-1 was written. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to compromise (Annexure P-1) Rs.10,00,000/- were deposited in the account of complainant by the petitioner and that however complainant left the matrimonial home without any cause. It has also been stated that the police also did not take any action for about four years and that after four years this FIR has been sought to be revived. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant that petitioner has not even adhered to compromise (Annexure P-1). It is contended that though Rs.10,00,000/- were deposited in the account of complainant and however later on same were got withdrawn from the complainant by petitioner and the amount was returned on the plea that as matter had been compromised and complainant was to reside with the petitioner. It is further contended that however petitioner left for Holland without taking complainant with him and acts of cruelty were being committed upon complainant by other family members. Further contended that when petitioner returned from Holland then complainant and her parents tried to contact him and however he refused to keep the complainant and minor child with him and rather he tried to leave for Holland again without taking complainant and her minor child with him. Further contended that he even applied for permission of this Court for going abroad and however the permission was declined. Further contended that action was not taken by the police on account of compromise and however when the compromise was not complied with by the petitioner, the case was revived. Hence, it is contended the petitioner is not entitled for extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The allegations are serious in nature as acts of Criminal Misc.No. M-17155 of 2010 -3- harassment were committed upon complainant and she was turned out of her matrimonial house alongwith her minor child. The petitioner had gone abroad without taking her and her minor child. As per compromise amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, which were paid to complainant, were also got withdrawn by the petitioner. The case was also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for re-conciliation, however, mediation also failed. In view of these facts, it is not such a case, in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-Kuldeep Singh as dowry articles are yet to be recovered. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition for anticipatory bail to the petitioner-Kuldeep Singh is dismissed. Interim order dated June 09, 2010 granted in favour of petitioner is also vacated. September 13, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE