In a bail petition concerning domestic assault and alleged cruelty, the court examined the facts of grievous injury and cruelty. It found no extraordinary circumstances warranting pre-arrest bail and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No.M-1466 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-1466 2011
Date of Decision: September 20, 2011
Dhiraj Kumar
…..Petitioner
Vs.
Union Territory, Chandigarh
…..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr.R.S. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate for U.T. Mr.V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the complainant.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Petitioner is husband of Meenakshi. He seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Meenakshi. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant had been residing with petitioner and his family members pursuant to the orders of the Court dated April 1, 2010. On April 15, 2010, she came to her parents’ house. On April 17, 2010, she alongwith her brother went to her in-laws house in Sector 46-D,
Crl. Misc. No.M-1466 of 2011
[2]
Chandigarh but the petitioner and his family members started abusing and assaulting her. They asked the brother of the complainant to go back. The petitioner and Surinder alongwith 10/12 boys started beating the brother of the complainant. He was admitted in the hospital. The complainant was locked in the house. Her mobile phone had been snatched. An attempt was made to burn her.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely implicated in the case and that an FIR No.137 has been registered under Sections 323, 506, 451/34 IPC against him. But in order to further harass him, another FIR has been registered i.e. FIR No.138 dated April 22, 2010 under Sections 325/34 IPC in which offences under Sections 406, 498A IPC have been added on the basis of the investigation.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has been booked in FIR No.137 under Sections 323, 506, 451/34 IPC registered on April 22, 2010 for the occurrence dated April 17, 2010 but the present FIR is registered on the basis of Act of assault dated April 18, 2010. The offences under Sections 406, 498A IPC have been incorporated on the basis of allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry at the instance of the complainant. The second FIR does not seem to be registered without any cause. An attempt had been made to get the matter amicably settled but no amicable settlement could be arrived at. In view of the grievous injury having been caused by the petitioner to the brother of the complainant besides treating her with
Crl. Misc. No.M-1466 of 2011 [3]
cruelty, it does not appear to be a case where extraordinary exceptional
circumstances could be said to be existing.
The petition is thus dismissed.
September 20, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the grievous injury and alleged cruelty in the domestic dispute.
Whether the second FIR was registered without cause or legitimately based on investigation findings.
Whether extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist for granting pre-arrest bail in this matter.
Dhiraj Kumar
Union Territory, Chandigarh
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
