Crl. Misc. No.M-11131 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-11131 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 28, 2010 Gaurav Madaan …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mrs. Baljit Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Y.P. Malik, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of his wife Divya alleging that the complainant was married to the petitioner on February 19, 2002 at Delhi. A huge amount was spent on various ceremonies like roka, engagement and marriage ceremony. Demand of big car like Skoda and gold ornaments for Crl. Misc. No.M-11131 of 2010 [2] all relatives was made. Most of the gold items were handed over to the petitioner and his relatives at the time of roka and the marriage was performed with great pump and show. Despite the marriage having been performed in one of the best hotels in Delhi, the petitioner and his family members were not happy. The petitioner and his family members started taunting the complainant regarding the marriage arrangements and their social status. They expressed dissatisfaction with the I10 luxury car, as there was expectation of a bigger car. The petitioner avoided to take the complainant in his social circle on the ground that he was a delhite and the complainant hailed from Rohtak. She was maltreated and insulted every day. She was beaten and dragged on June 20, 2000 in which she received number of injuries including a fracture on her right hand above the elbow. She was operated on July 17, 2009 in Saroj Hospital in Pritam Pura, Near Madhuban Chowk. The entire expenditure of treatment was incurred by her parents and she was brought to Rohtak. Attempt was made to settle the matter amicably by convening meetings by the parents of the complainant but demand of Rs.50 lacs for expanding the business was raised. Petitioner claims that he and his family members had been falsely implicated. It was urged that the complainant was suffering from a serious disease of the bone which is incurable called ‘Polyostotic Fibrous Dysplasia”. The said disease causes fractures in the bones, bending of bones/ abnormal curving of the spine, arthritis and Cancer. The said disease starts at the age of 8 years and serious health complications occur at the time of pregnancy. The petitioner claims that he felt cheated and defrauded and Crl. Misc. No.M-11131 of 2010 [3] that he had filed a complaint with the police on August 31, 2009 under Sections 417, 420, 503, 504, 506 and 34 IPC in the Court at Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi and the Court had directed the SHO concerned to file the status report. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the complainant in the matrimonial Court at Rohini. He also filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Mrs.Baljit Mann, counsel for the petitioner urged that the complaint filed by the petitioner is a counter-blast to the divorce petition and that in order to cover the act of cheating committed by the complainant’s family, the present case has been registered against the family members of the petitioners. The other family members have been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and made an attempt for re-conciliation by summoning the complainant but the attempt for reconciliation failed on account of the serious allegations of cheating levelled by the petitioner. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was not suffering from any serious disease whereas counsel for the petitioner relied upon a certificate annexure P-2 issued by the Saroj Hospital and Heard Institute, Delhi wherein it has been certified that the complainant was suffering from Fibroid Displasia and the said disease in future may cause Pathological fracture in other bones. Crl. Misc. No.M-11131 of 2010 [4] I have heard counsel for the petitioner, State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant at length. The main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant is suffering from a serious disease and the said disease had been concealed regarding which a complaint has been filed besides a petition for declaring the marriage a nullity and that the allegations in the complaint are false. So far as the nature of the disease is concerned, the disease alleged is a rare disease of Skelton. No material is available with the Court at this stage whether the symptoms are mild or severe. No opinion can be found on the basis of a certificate annexure P-2 produced on the record. It is yet to be determined by a civil Court whether the said certificate is a procured document or it is sufficient enough to establish that an incurable disease is suffered by the complainant which would result in failure of the complainant to perform her matrimonial obligations to conceive and deliver children. The petitioner seems to have become over-panicky and approached criminal and civil Courts to get rid of the complainant. The action of the petitioner is alleged to be a mode to harass the complainant on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to handover all the dowry articles as and when at any place as directed by the investigating agency or the Court. I have carefully considered the entire circumstances of this case. This case appears to be a glaring example of social evil of demand of dowry where the husband instead of sympathizing with the fracture suffered by the complainant has gone to the extent of dragging her to the Court in a Crl. Misc. No.M-11131 of 2010 [5] case of cheating and seek annulment of marriage, no extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. May 28, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE