Allowed

Aman Gupta v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2013CRM-M/19041/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a matrimonial dispute involvingSections 498-A, 406, 323, and 506 IPC. The court accepted the petition and made interim bail absolute, noting the petitioner's cooperation and the settlement efforts.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is accepted; interim bail is made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Aman Gupta Vs State of Haryana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-19041 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-19041 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 02.09.2013

Aman Gupta

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sagar Deswal, Asstt. Advocate General Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶13

Mr. Gourav Mohunta, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶16

Petitioner-Aman Gupta (husband) son of S.K. Gupta, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, along with his, parents S.K. Gupta and Santosh Gupta (parents-in-law), brother Basant Gupta (brother-in-law) and sister Hema Gupta (daughter-in-law) of complainant Shammi daughter of Ranbir Singh (for brevity 'the complainant'), vide FIR No.81 dated 25.04,2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC, by the police of Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurgaon, invoking the provisions of

¶17

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.03 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM No.M-19041 of 2012 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Notices of the petition were issued to the State/complainant.

¶22

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶23

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Vijender Singh Malik, J.), has passed the following order on July 04, 2012: -

¶24

“Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was married with the complainant in the year 2000 and that after staying in USA into the year 2006, they had returned to India. He further contends that the matrimonial dispute has its origin from the side of the complainant and not the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is intending to settle the matter either way with the complainant.

¶25

Notice of motion for 17.8.2012.

¶26

If the petitioner is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions laid down in section 438 sub section 2 clauses (i)(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

¶27

Subsequently, the parties have amicably settled the disputes and the following order was passed, by this Court, on April 30, 2013: -

¶28

“Learned counsel for the petitioner and complainant jointly submit that the parties have reached a compromise under which they agreed to sell both the properties of the parties and to share the sale proceeds in equal. They have also some other terms, which they want to bring on record, for which they seek a date.

¶29

Adjourned to 22.05.2013.”

¶30

At the very outset, on instructions from SI Dinesh Kumar, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Although, the petitioner is

¶31

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.03 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

CRM No.M-19041 of 2012 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

prepared to compromise but now the complainant has took a somersault and refused to settle the matter.

¶35

Not only that, the contents contained in the FIR (Annexure P-1) would reveal that the petitioner is a qualified Electronics Engineer, whereas the complainant is B.Tech in Computer Engineer. Their marriage was solemnized on 26.11.2000, according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. They have left India on 10.12.2000 to settle in USA. They resided together and cohabited as husband and wife and one daughter, namely Isha, was born out of their wedlock on 06.01.2005 in USA. On 25.01.2006, they came to India to attend the marriage of sister of the petitioner. The complainant did not attend the marriage and went to Jind to live with her parents. It was claimed that the petitioner went to USA, without intimating the complainant. He came to India in the month of March and took the complainant with him to USA. The parties remained there and finally came to India on 01.08.2006. In this manner, the complainant had listed the alleged acts of cruelty committed by the petitioner in USA and not in India.

¶36

The complainant has also levelled the similar allegations of dowry and demand of cash, against other relatives of the petitioner, who were granted the concession of anticipatory bail, by the Additional Sessions Judge, by way of order dated 05.06.2012 (Annexure P-2). In that eventuality, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner, under the similar set of circumstances.

¶37

Moreover, whether the indicated demand of cash and the alleged acts of cruelty in USA (not at all relatable to dowry, in

¶38

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.03 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶39

CRM No.M-19041 of 2012 (O&M) 4

¶40

consideration of the marriage) by the accused, will attract the provisions of Section 498-A Cr.P.C. or not, would be moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. There is no history of his (petitioner) previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶41

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is hereby accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by virtue of order dated July 04, 2012, is made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶42

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail only. At the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this respect.

¶43

September 02, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶44

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.03 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Aman Gupta v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Gupta v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amandeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rama Kishan Vs State of Haryana

Jaspal Saroya Vs State of Punjab

Satbhushan and Anr. Vs State of Punjab