Crl.M.No.M-30072 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-30072 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: June 30, 2010 Avneet Kumar Gupta @ Avineet Kumar Gupta and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.APS Deol, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.31922 of 2010 Requests for placing on record Annexure P22, the submissions by way of affidavit. The same is taken on record. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.M-30072 of 2009 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.477, dated 7.7.2009, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Crl.M.No.M-30072 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Brief allegations against the petitioners-accused are that marriage of complainant with Avneet Kumar Gupta, petitioner no.1 was solemnised on 6.12.2005 at Hotel Le Marridian, Windsor Palace. Before the marriage a lavish engagement ceremony had also taken place and many gifts in the form of cash and gold were given to petitioners-accused and their relatives. Mercedes car was also given in the marriage by father of the complainant. 15 sets of ornaments including 5 diamond sets were also given in the dowry. Rs.2,51,000/- were entrusted to petitioner no.2 for purchase of house-hold articles. The hotel bill was also paid by father of the complainant. However, petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of the complainant. They used to say that father of complainant is a very rich man of Bathinda and that he has not spent sufficient amount in the marriage and hence complainant was harassed. On 9.12.2005 mother of complainant and some other members met with an accident and in that accident complainant's mother expired. After sometimes, again petitioners started harassing her and raised a demand of Rs.1 crore. Although servants were employed in the house of the petitioners, however, they used to compel her to mop the floor and clean utensils. On the occasion of Lohri, father of complainant had given Rs.1 lac cash besides golden ornaments, however, petitioners were not satisfied. There was a demand of money on the ground that petitioner no.1 intends to start a big factory. On 29.12.2006 the accused alongwith other relatives visited Bathinda and raised demand. Uncle of complainant arranged Rs.5 lacs and the same was given to petitioners. Father of complainant requested them not to harass the complainant and she be kept peacefully in the matrimonial house. However, harassment continued. On 8.9.2006 severe Crl.M.No.M-30072 of 2009 (O&M) -3- beatings were given to the complainant, while she was pregnant. Later on father of complainant gave Rs.2,25,000/-, by way of a draft bearing No.871859 dated 9.10.2006 and Rs.1,12,500/- by way of another draft bearing No.230138 of Bank of Baroda. The complainant gave birth to a female child at her house and however, none of the accused visited on the said happy occasion. Father of complainant gave another draft bearing No.734110 dated 30.12.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- and another draft for Rs.2,25,000/-. However, petitioners were not satisfied and later on a draft bearing No.138708/89 dated 9.3.2009 for a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- was given after taking loan by father of complainant and however, harassment of complainant continued. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was also paid by way of draft on 18.4.2007. Panchayats were also convened, however, the dispute was not settled and rather threats were raised from the petitioners' side even in the presence of members of Panchayat. Complaint was made by the complainant to the Senior Superintendent of Police and after enquiry case was registered against the present petitioners only for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC. Earlier a petition for quashing of this very FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was also filed on behalf of the petitioners, however the same was dismissed by this Court on merit vide a detailed order, Annexure P12. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that he has already returned Rs.20,50,000/- which were taken by way of demand draft as per order of this Court and that petitioners also returned Rs.4,60,000/- subsequently. Further plea has been taken that complainant is suffering from mental disorder and hence, she could not be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home and that she left the matrimonial home of her own Crl.M.No.M-30072 of 2009 (O&M) -4- will. It has also been stated that she has also initiated proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2009, and she has also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Petitioner No.1 has also filed petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the same has been later on converted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. It has also been contended that dismissal of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR is quite different, as the present petition is for anticipatory bail. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel as well as by learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that the only amount which was received by way of sale of mercedes car and the amount which was given by way of bank drafts has been received and, however, golden ornaments have not been received and hence, in view of serious allegations of harassment and cruelty on account of dowry by the petitioners, they are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. There are serious allegations of cruelty and harassment on account of dowry against the petitioners. Even after marriage, admittedly they received amount by way of bank drafts from father of the complainant, though the said amount has now been returned. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners- Avneet Kumar Gupta @ Avineet Kumar Gupta and Ashok Kumar Gupta for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 30.6.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.M.No.M-30072 of 2009 (O&M) -5-