husband ready 2.65 lakhs Wife wants 20 lakhs!! Wife refuses + NOT attnd mediation!. Husband gets AB @ P&H HC. No car given at the time of marriage. So HC asks how 20 Lakhs spent on marriage and grants bail
Notes
*******************
* FIR No. 48 dated 18.07.2012 at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga, for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC
* Initially some mediation takes place
* accoring to this mediation return of dowry articles and payment of rs 265000 is agreed
* so husband is ready with DD of 265000
* Wife refuses to take the same and demands (indirectly demands) 20 lahs !!
* P & H HC grants the husband AB on 04.12.2012
* and the Hon HC confirms on 30 May 2013 ".....the petition is allowed and order dated 04.12.2012 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute....."
* Case to continue as long as husband is ready to fight
**************************************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M- 38171 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.05.2013
**************************************************************************************
Jaspal Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
**************************************************************************************
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:- Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab for respondent no.1.
Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2.
**************************************************************************************
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J
**************************************************************************************
Jaspal Singh, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 48 dated 18.07.2012 at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga, for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant Paramjit Kaur. According to him, the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant was compromised with the intervention of the respectable persons. According to him, besides returning some of the dowry articles, a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- was also settled to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant in the name of money spent in the marriage and on other articles. He has further submitted that the petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail before the court of session and he was ready at that time with the draft of Rs.2,65,000/- but respondent no.2 did not receive the same. He has further submitted that even the matter was sent to the Mediation Cell of this Court where the complainant missed the mediation sessions. He has further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation.
Learned State counsel has admitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation. However, he has submitted that the money spent in the marriage has not been returned in this case. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was spent in the marriage. According to him, there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
There is no denial on the part of the complainant that compromise Annexure P-1 was arrived at between the parties with the intervention of respectable persons. This compromise itself shows that there had been a dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. Some dowry articles were returned and for the rest a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- was agreed to be paid by the husband to the wife. It is also not denied that the complainant never came to receive the amount in question.
To a question by the Court, it has been admitted by learned counsel for the complainant that no car was given in the marriage. If a car of any make was not given in the marriage, it is hard to believe that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was spent in the marriage.
Looking to the fact that the petitioner is still ready with the draft of Rs.2,65,000/-, and has already returned some of the dowry articles and has joined the investigation, I do not find his custodial interrogation to be required for the purpose of investigation of this case. In these circumstances, the petitioner appears to be entitled to anticipatory bail.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 04.12.2012 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
May 30,2013
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK )
JUDGE
dinesh
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NIC / P & H HC WEB SITE
******************************************************************
*****************
FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases )
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
