Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 366 (HP)

Ricky Ahuja v. State of Punjab

2012-07-02

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
ORDER : As the above indicated petitions have arisen out of the same FIR/case, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of facts. 2. Having exercised and lost their right in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, petitioners Ricky Ahuja (husband), Mohinder Ahuja (father-in-law) and Sonia Ahuja married (sister-in-law) of complainant Neha Ahuja, have directed the present applications for anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of section 438, Cr.PC. 3. Concisely, the prosecution case is that the marriage of complainant Neha Ahuja was solemnized with petitioner Ricky Ahuja on 12.10.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Amritsar. Her parents were stated to have given dowry articles, but the petitioners were not satisfied. They demanded more dowry articles. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that she was treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry by the petitioners-accused. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the instant case was registered against the petitioners, by way of FIR, bearing No.442 dated 9.12.2011 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, in the manner depicted hereinabove. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present applications for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that the marriage between Ricky Ahuja and Neha Ahuja was performed only on 12.10.2011 and the instant case was registered against the petitioners-accused on 9.12.2011 i.e. about 58 days after the solemnization of their marriage. 7. During the pendency of the present applications, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their dispute before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, by means of compromise deed/agreement dated 29.5.2012, which, in substance, is as under: 1. That Ricky Ahuja who is husband of Neha Ahuja hereinafter is called the first party. 2. That Neha Ahuja who is wife of Ricky Ahuja hereinafter is called the second party. 3. That first party and second party have agreed to live separately. 4. That Ricky Ahuja who is husband of Neha Ahuja hereinafter is called the first party. 2. That Neha Ahuja who is wife of Ricky Ahuja hereinafter is called the second party. 3. That first party and second party have agreed to live separately. 4. That first party and second party will file a mutual consent divorce and no party will object to it. It has been mutually agreed between the parties that both the parties will reach at Mohali Court on 05.06.2012 at 10.00 a.m. 5. That first party agrees to pay a total amount of `4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs only) to the second party in the Court of District Judge at the time of grant of decree of mutual consent divorce (statutory period of six months). 6. That first party further agrees to hand over the dowry articles including jewellery (gold rings and ear rings) to the father-in-law and sister-in-law of second party and one Diamond ring given to the first party. It has further been agreed between the parties that first party will hand over the said articles on 05.06.2012 at Mohali Court and the second party will give a receipt of the said articles. 7. That second party will withdraw all civil and criminal cases pending in different Courts against the first party. It is not worthy to mention here that this is one time settlement and second party will not claim any maintenance from the first party in future. 8. That both the parties are completely satisfied with the aforesaid compromise and will not launch any civil/criminal case against each other in future. 9. That both the parties have agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the present agreement. 10. That the matter has been mutually, amicably and voluntarily settled between the parties through the process of mediation without any undue influence, pressure or misrepresentation and the parties hereby agree and undertake to abide by the aforesaid terms and conditions and not to raise any dispute, whatsoever, in the matter in future. 8. It is not a matter of dispute that the parties have filed a joint divorce petition to dissolve their marriage, by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in pursuance of the pointed compromise. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant applications for anticipatory bail are hereby accepted. 8. It is not a matter of dispute that the parties have filed a joint divorce petition to dissolve their marriage, by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in pursuance of the pointed compromise. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant applications for anticipatory bail are hereby accepted. It is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 10. Needless to state that if the petitioners do not cooperate/join the investigation or violate any terms and conditions of the indicated compromise deed/agreement, then the State/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their anticipatory bail, in this relevant connection. Petition allowed.