Dismissed

Anju Chopra v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2013CRM-M/11827/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the mother-in-law of the accused. The court found that the petitioner pressured the complainant to demand dowry beyond her capacity, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home, thereby denying bail in a custodial interrogation context.

What did the court decide?

The application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed as no ground was made out for its grant.

Anju Chopra Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-M-11827 of 2013(O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-11827 of 2013(O&M). Date of decision: May 14, 2013.

Anju Chopra

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT: Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Ankur Jain, AAG., Punjab. Mr.Krishan Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶12

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).

¶13

Petitioner Anju Chopra is mother-in-law of Neha in a case where the allegations have been levelled that the petitioner along with her son and other family members had maltreated the complainant.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a widow living with her other son having no concern with Amit Chopra or the complainant.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the police file. It is apparent that the petitioner has been residing at the same address where Amit Chopra has been residing. It will not be appropriate, at this stage, to enter into the debate whether the petitioner is residing with her elder son in

¶16

¶17

CRM-M-11827 of 2013(O&M)

¶18

a separate portion of the same flat but the fact remains that the petitioner and her son had created such circumstances for the complainant that she had to leave the matrimonial home within short duration after her marriage. The application for pre-arrest bail of Amit Chopra has been dismissed by this Court. The petitioner has been instrumental in compelling the complainant to leave the matrimonial home by pressuring her to bring more dowry articles beyond the capacity of complainant and her family members.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not a case of recovery of dowry articles as there is no allegation of misappropriation of any dowry article.

¶20

I have gone through the police file. It appears that the complainant had submitted an application to the police of Abohar that accused should be arrested and her dowry articles be recovered. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fazilka acting on the said application on 31.12.2012 had issued necessary directions for recovery of dowry articles. It is apparent from the record that it is a case of custodial interrogation where the recovery of the dowry articles is yet to be effected.

¶21

No ground is made out for the grant of pre-arrest

¶22

bail.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

May 14, 2013. rka

¶25

(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE

¶26

Anju Chopra v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Chopra v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbans Singh Randhawa Vs Simranjit Kaur

Vipin Kakkar Vs State of Haryana

Rabbi Dass Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Swaran Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Amit Chopra Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda Vs State of Punjab