Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1212 (PNJ)

Pankaj Verma v. State of Punjab

2012-09-14

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 137 dated 08.10.2011, under Sections 406/498A IPC, registered at police station Goraya, District Jalandhar. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dismissing bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Briefly stated, marriage of petitioner-Pankaj Verma and complainant was solemnized on 19.02.2007 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Sufficient articles were given in the dowry including golden ornaments. However, petitioners and family members were not satisfied with the same and they used to cause mental and physical harassment and used to commit acts of cruelty upon her. Complainant continued to tolerate the same in the hope that the behaviour of the petitioners-accused would improve with the passage of time. She also gave birth to a male child in the house of her parents on 30.11.2007 and thereafter, she was brought to the matrimonial home by the petitioners with the assurance that they will not harass her and however, again harassment started. There was demand of Rs.25-30 lacs for purchasing a new house for husband of the complainant. 4. At the time of issuing of notice of motion in Crl. Misc. No.M- 36789 of 2011 filed by Pankaj Verma -husband, the following order was passed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 07.12.2011:- “Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered at the instance of his wife Jyoti levelling allegations of maltreatment and demand of dowry. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute and resume cohabitation with the complainant. Notice of motion for 30.1.2012. Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer on 17.12.2011. In case of petitioner doing so, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioner will appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 6.1.2012. Jyoti daughter of Nanak Chand resident of Gainda Ram Co., Bara Pind Road, Goraya, District Jalandhar, Punjab, wife of Pankaj Verma petitioner is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2. The petitioner will appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 6.1.2012. Jyoti daughter of Nanak Chand resident of Gainda Ram Co., Bara Pind Road, Goraya, District Jalandhar, Punjab, wife of Pankaj Verma petitioner is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2. Notice be issued to the complainant to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 6.1.2012. The petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on said date on account of travelling and miscellaneous expenses.” 5. At the time of issuing of notice of motion in Crl.Misc. No.M- 34953 of 2011 filed by Mohan Lal and Nirmala Devi, the following order was passed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.11.2011:- “Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of Jyoti, who was married to Pankaj Verma, their son. There are allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty against the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had been residing separately and that there is no allegation of entrustment of any dowry article. Heard. A perusal of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge indicates that on account of recoveries which are required to be made from the petitioners, they have been declined the concession of pre-arrest bail. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are even ready to compensate the complainant for the alleged articles of gifts claimed by her, to have been given to the petitioners. Notice of motion for January 30, 2012. Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioners will join investigation on December 3, 2011 and handover a bank draft for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of complainant in lieu of the tentative price of the articles which are yet to be recovered and in case of their doing so, they will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.” 6. Pursuant to the said orders, Rs.20,000/- on account of travelling and miscellaneous expenses were paid by petitioner -Pankaj Verma to complainant. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was also paid as part value of the articles which are yet to be recovered from the petitioners. Both the parties were sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for settlement however, settlement could not be arrived. 7. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was also paid as part value of the articles which are yet to be recovered from the petitioners. Both the parties were sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for settlement however, settlement could not be arrived. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners-accused that there are only general allegations and there is no specific allegation of entrustment of any specific dowry article to present petitioners-accused. It is further contended that petitioner -Pankaj Verma is still ready to take complainant and minor child in the matrimonial home. 8. On the other hand, bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent-State as well as by learned counsel for complainant, on the plea that in view of previous conduct of petitioners towards complainant, she apprehends danger to her life hence, she does not want to reside with the petitioners. It is further contended that as per list of dowry articles provided by complainant, golden ornaments weighing 67 Tolas were entrusted to petitioners and other family members and however, nothing has been recovered except Rs.50,000/- as per order of this Court as part value of the golden ornaments. It is also contended that some of the bills regarding golden ornaments were given by the complainant. 9. In view of these facts, petitioners have failed to get all the golden ornaments recovered in compliance of the order dated 21.11.2011 that they are ready to compensate the complainant for the articles of gifts allegedly given to them at the time of marriage. Complainant alongwith the minor child is living separate from petitioners since August, 2011 i.e. for the last one year. 10. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused. 11. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the applications for anticipatory bail filed by Pankaj Verma, Mohan Lal and Nirmala Devi are, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. 12. Interim orders dated 21.11.2011 and 07.12.2011 already granted in their favour stand vacated. 13. Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------