Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1293 (PNJ)

Sunny Soin v. State of Punjab

2012-09-25

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions bearing Crl.M.Nos.M-21136 and 23837 of 2011, filed by Sunny Soin and Parveen Soin, respectively, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No.108, dated 18.6.2011, under Sections 324, 323, 498 A IPC and under Sections 406/506 (now added), registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which applications filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail were dismissed. 3. Brief allegations are that complainant was married with petitioner-Sunny Soin on 28.5.2010. Sufficient articles were given in the dowry at the time of marriage, detail of which has been given in the FIR. Specific articles were entrusted to petitioners-accused and other family members. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was spent in the marriage. However, they were not satisfied with the same. They used to harass complainant mentally as well as physically on account of dowry. There are specific allegations that both the petitioners used to give beatings to her. She was turned out of the matrimonial home after giving her beatings by raising demand of Rs.10 lacs for being invested in the business of her husband in night in the month of September 2010. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was given by father of complainant to her husband and, however, they were not satisfied. There is allegation that petitioner- Parveen Soin, mother-in-law of the complainant even attempted to set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her while she was in a state of pregnancy and hence, premature daughter was born to her. Again in the night of 17.6.2011, she alongwith her daughter was turned out of the matrimonial home. She remained admitted in civil Hospital, Ludhiana, for about 2 to 4 days. Many panachyats were also convened by parents of complainant to make petitioners understand but to no effect. 4. Efforts for reconciliation were also made by this Court. Parties were also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court but to no effect. She remained admitted in civil Hospital, Ludhiana, for about 2 to 4 days. Many panachyats were also convened by parents of complainant to make petitioners understand but to no effect. 4. Efforts for reconciliation were also made by this Court. Parties were also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court but to no effect. Though it has been stated that petitioner Sunny Soin is ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home and, however, it was stated on behalf of the respondent-complainant that though she is residing separate from the complainant since 17.6.2011 and, however, nothing was paid to her as maintenance. It is further contended that in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., interim maintenance @ Rs.4,500/- was granted to her and, however, nothing was paid. Petitioner had stated before this Court that he was ready to clear the arrears of maintenance and, hence, he was directed to do the same to show his bona fide that he was ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home and, however, despite taking 2-3 dates for this purpose, he has not complied with the said order. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that the allegations are general in nature and that petitioner-Parveen Soin is an old lady of 50 years of age and that no specific role has been attributed to her. 6. However, bail applications have been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant as well as by learned State Counsel on the ground that specific allegations have been levelled against both the petitioners and that the acts of physical violence were also committed by both the petitioners. It is also contended that dowry articles are also yet to be recovered. 7. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petitions filed by petitioners-Sunny Soin and Parveen Soin for grant of anticipatory bail are, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9. Interim orders dated 15.7.2011 and 16.8.2011 already granted in their favour stand vacated.