Dismissed

Amit Chopra v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2013CRM-M/12673/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a matrimonial dispute alleging cruelty. The court dismissed the application, observing that no extraordinary circumstances existed, particularly noting the petitioner's failure to appear for mediation and offer the stipulated amount for the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail to the petitioner was denied; the application was dismissed.

Amit Chopra Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-M-12673 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-12673 of 2013 (O&M). Date of decision: May 14, 2013.

Amit Chopra

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and another

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

*** * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI**

¶10

PRESENT: Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Ankur Jain, AAG., Punjab.

¶12

Mr.Krishan Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶13

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

¶14

Petitioner Amit Chopra is husband of Neha. She

¶15

was married to him on 25.3.2012. The petitioner is alleged to have beaten the complainant, treated her with cruelty and turned her out of the house on 5.5.2012. At the time of preliminary hearing taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, it was observed that no extra ordinary circumstances exist to grant the concession of prearrest bail but in order to make an attempt to amicably get the dispute settled, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and in order to ensure that the complainant who had been insulted and turned out of the matrimonial house could be

¶16

¶17

CRM-M-12673 of 2013 (O&M)

¶18

encouraged, it was ordered that a sum of ` 30,000/- will be paid as misc. expenses to enable her to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court. It has been informed that neither the petitioner appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre nor offered the meagre amount fixed for enabling the complainant to build confidence. As per the complainant there are certain objections to the photograph of the petitioner with his sister-in-law. This fact is clear indication of the cruelty.

¶19

Without entering into the details of the allegations, it is apparently clear that the petitioner has created such situations for the complainant that she had to stay with her parents after marriage. A married female would not generally stay away from the matrimonial home unless and until compelled by the circumstances and behaviour of her husband and in-laws.

¶20

No ground is made out to grant the concession of

¶21

pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Dismissed.

¶23

May 14, 2013. rka

¶24

(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE

¶25

Amit Chopra v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Chopra v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Anju Chopra Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda Vs State of Punjab