Crl. Misc. No. M-29340 of 2011(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-29340 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 03, 2011 Harish Kumar Arora ---Petitioner versus U.T. Chandigarh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “ Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by Harish Kumar Arora, petitioner-accused, for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 258 dated 12.8.2011 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Sector-17, Chandigarh. According to him, he has been falsely implicated and the allegations made in the FIR are not correct. He has been victimized only because the marriage could not be solemnized though he had already been engaged to the prosecutrix. During the enquiry conducted by Sub Inspector of the Chandigarh Police, nothing was found Crl. Misc. No. M-29340 of 2011(O&M) -2- against him. When no such case is made out, he is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. He has tried to rely upon the communication which took place between his brother and the prosecutrix on the mobile telephone, which was duly recorded by his brother and in which the prosecutrix admitted that she made a false statement against him. This FIR was registered on the basis of the written application made by the prosecutrix against the petitioner in which she contended that they had been working together and the petitioner wanted to marry her and ultimately her parents agreed for this marriage and they were engaged. Thereafter, they had been meeting each other and were having sexual relations. Whenever, she had been asking him to perform the marriage, he had been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. In fact, he had been committing sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage and put up a condition that he be paid ` 50,000,00/- as dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to contend that the parties were having love affair and that crystalized into engagement for marriage. It is only when the petitioner refused to marry her that the prosecutrix lodged the FIR. The prosecutrix admitted in her talks with the brother of the petitioner which took place on a mobile phone and which were duly recorded, that she gave a false application against him. At this stage, there is nothing on record on the basis of which it may be said that alleged communication between the prosecutrix and the brother of the petitioner is the authentic one and the CD on which the talks have been recorded is the correct recording of that talk. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the petitioner promised to marry the prosecutrix and after that promise, had been committing sexual intercourse with her and Crl. Misc. No. M-29340 of 2011(O&M) -3- ultimately refused to marry her. Such an act amounts to offence under Section 376 IPC. For such like offence, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. The petition is, therefore dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE October 03, 2011 PARAMJIT