* Husband is a retired Army Officer having held the post of Brigadier
* Marriage was in 1980 i.e. 34 years ago
* Wife claims that she was beaten immediately after marriage , yep more than 30 years ago !! and also on 19.3.2014
* So wife files a 498A !!
* Court asks couple to go for mediation, but wife refuses to attend mediation saying it is too far for her !!
* Husband runs for Bail and has to go to HC to get bail
*****************************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 movement. SIF as a concept 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 Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo .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 / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-14902 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 28.07.2014.
Parveen Paul --Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
**********
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.26 dated 25.3.2014 under section 498-A I.P.C, registered at Police Station, Shahpur Kandi, District Pathankot. On 2.5.2014, while issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court:-
"Counsel would contend that as per allegations contained in the FIR, the incident had occurred 34 years back i.e. in the year 1980 when the marriage between the complainant and the present petitioner was solemnised. Counsel further submits that after 1980 and till the date of lodging of the FIR in question, no complaint as regards demand of dowry/ harassment had been lodged by the complainant. It is further contended that the petitioner is a retired Army Officer having held the post of Brigadier. Notice of motion, returnable for 27.05.2014. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and he shall remain bound by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."
Learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Dharamjeet would apprise the Court that the petitioner has since joined investigation. However, learned counsel appearing for the complainant would vehemently oppose the instant petition. Counsel would contend that the complainant has been harassed repeatedly and there are specific allegations with regard to beatings as also the accused/husband having entered into illicit relations. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
It may be noticed that on 27.5.2014 the parties had been directed to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court to thrash out the possibility of an amicable settlement.
As per report of the Mediator, placed on record, a single session was held on 3.7.2014, wherein the parties had duly appeared. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 23.7.2014 and on which date the complainant had not come present citing her medical condition. It may also be noticed that an application i.e. CRM No.22361 of 2014 has been preferred by the complainant and in which prayer is for dismissal of the present petition. The same is supported by an affidavit of the complainant dated 25.7.2014 and which has been duly verified in Chandigarh.
It becomes apparent that the complainant, who, otherwise is stated to be a resident of Pathankot has travelled all the way to Chandigarh to furnish such affidavit on 25.7.2014 but is otherwise taking a stand as regards her unavailability to appear before the Mediation Centre. The only inference which can be drawn is that the complainant is not cooperating and is not interested in a settlement to be arrived at before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Towards taking such view a reading of the F.I.R would make interesting reading. The marriage between the parties was stated to be have been solemnized in the year 1980. Allegations are with regard to the complainant having been harassed and having been beaten up immediately thereafter and the complainant having also come to know as regards the accused (husband) having illicit relations with a girl namely Tina. Such allegations pertain to a period of more than 30 years prior to the date of registration of the F.I.R. Still further, the only occurrence that is alleged to have taken place in the recent past is dated 19.3.2014 in which the petitioner is stated to have received certain injuries and having got treatment from the General Hospital, Pathankot. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
Even in this regard learned State counsel would submit that during the course of investigation, it has been found that the injuries have been caused by a blunt weapon.
In the totality of the circumstances noticed herein above and in view of the fact that the petitioner has already joined investigation, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 2.5.2014, passed by this Court, is made absolute.
Petition disposed of.
All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
JUDGE
July 28, 2014.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
*****************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ 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
No comments:
Post a Comment