Crl. Misc.No. M- 33133 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M- 33133 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 3, 2011 Gurjot Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate, for for the petitioner. GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner/accused, Gurjot Singh, has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 287 dated 3.9.2011 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in Police Station Payal, District Khanna. He has contended therein that he is a national level player of volleyball and on the basis thereof he is serving in the Railways. The complainant is holding a double post-graduate degree and is serving as Assistant Professor in a College. Though she belongs to a middle class family, yet she believes that doing of routine household work is a bad habit. The same resulted in temperamental differences and friction between them. His job was not to her liking and she had been insisting that he should leave the job and start some business in Ludhiana. He himself and his family members never demanded even a single penny from her or her parents. In fact, she removed Crl. Misc.No. M- 33133 of 2011 2 all the jewellery from the matrimonial home in a very well planned manner. He is ready to hand over even those articles, which are lying in the house and which belongs to him or her. He has not committed any such offences, as mentioned in the FIR and, in fact, it is the matrimonial dispute which resulted in the registration thereof. It was on the written application of the complainant given to the SSP that the FIR was registered against the present petitioner and his other family members. It has been narrated therein that about 20 lakhs were spent on the marriage in which dowry articles were given to the petitioner and his family members and the same were her istridhan and were to be delivered to her. However, inspite of demand those articles were not handed over to her. She had been harassed and treated with cruelty by the petitioner and his other family members on account of demand of dowry. She was even insulted and humiliated in the presence of her relatives on the ground of the demand of dowry. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant, on account of her better education, had high hopes, which resulted in temperamental differences between her and the petitioner and that ultimately led to lodging of the false FIR. No such dowry articles were given in the marriage nor any such dowry articles are to be recovered from the petitioner. It is the matrimonial dispute which has been given the colour of criminality. A minute perusal of the FIR leaves no doubt that, according to the complainant, specific jewellery articles were entrusted to the petitioner, which were meant for her and were not given to her inspite of demand Crl. Misc.No. M- 33133 of 2011 3 raised by her. The contentions made in the petition itself suggest that such dowry was given in the marriage, as according to the petitioner, the complainant removed the jewellery from the matrimonial home and that he is ready to return the articles belonging to her. It is only the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, which will be in the interest of the investigation. The Court is to draw a balance between the individual liberty and effective investigation. The very purpose of effective interrogation will be defeated once the petitioner is armed with an order of anticipatory bail. No ground is made for grant of anticipatory bail and the petition is hereby dismissed. November 3, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE