Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 2241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Ramesh Kumar Gupta - Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab & Another - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous M Nos. 10286 & 12438 of 2011 (O and M)
Decided On : 30-12-2011
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Harkesh Manuja, Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Ms. Vidushi Gaur
For the Respondents: B.B.S. Teji, Mr. Atul Goyal
The importance of amicably resolving matrimonial disputes for the well-being of the child and the suggestion of mediation under the guidance of elders or a common mediator.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Matrimonial Dispute - IPC 406, 498A - Domestic Violence Act - Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, with allegations of dowry harassment and beating resulting in miscarriage. The court considered the statements of the parties and the circumstances surrounding the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there were allegations and counter-allegations, it could not be termed that the petitioners were criminals. The court emphasized the need for good sense to prevail and suggested mediation for resolving the differences, especially considering the future of the child.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of dowry harassment, beating resulting in miscarriage, and the readiness of the husband to take the complainant back to the matrimonial home.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of resolving matrimonial disputes amicably, especially for the well-being of the child. It considered the tolerance level of the parties and suggested mediation under the guidance of elders or a common mediator.
Final Decision: The interim bail granted to the petitioners was made absolute, subject to their compliance with the provisions of Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
This order will dispose of the aforesaid petitions. The petitioner in CRM-M No. 10286 of 2011 is the father-in-law and petitioner in CRM-M No. 12438 of 2011 is the husband of the complainant. Prayer in both the petitions is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 47 dated 16.2.2011, registered under Sections 406, 498A, IPC at Police Station A-Division, Amritsar. The FIR is the result of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner Vishal Gupta and the complainant Deepti @ Kajal Gupta. Marriage between them was solemnized on 10.12.2005. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born on 10.11.2006. The FIR was registered on 16.2.2011. The allegations in the FIR are regarding harassment on account of demand of dowry and beating of complainant which allegedly resulted into miscarriage.
2. The submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners were that ever since the marriage took place, the parties were living happily. The dispute arose only after the daughter of petitioner Ramesh Kumar Gupta (sister-in-law (nanad) of the complainant) came to her parental home on account of a matrimonial dispute with her in-laws in August 2010. Even in the statement of the complainant recorded in proceedings initiated by the complainant under the Domestic Violence Act, she had admitted that till 2009, the relations were cordial. The allegations regarding beating and miscarriage as a result thereof were not found to be correct on inquiry as the doctor had opined that on account of certain emergency, the foetus had to be aborted to save the life of the complainant. It was further submitted that in fact on the date the complainant was taken to the doctor in the evening, the husband was not even present at Amritsar as he had gone to Himachal Pradesh on a business tour.
3. The FIR is stated to be so intelligently drafted that there is no entrustment of any dowry articles or gift to the mother-in-law, though she was alive at the time when the marriage took place, however, did not mention about her when the FIR was registered, as she had expired after the marriage. It was further submitted that the husband was still ready and willing to bring the complainant to the matrimonial home. However, the complainant was not ready. It was further submitted that recovery of dowry articles has already been made.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that there are allegations against the petitioners regarding harassment on account of demand of dowry. The complainant was being harassed from the very beginning for not fulfilling their undue demand of dowry. Though the petitioners have joined the investigation but the recovery of all dowry articles is yet to be made. Regarding abortion, the submission was that on inquiry, the allegations were found to be incorrect. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that from the very beginning, the police is conniving with the petitioners. Though recovery of some dowry articles has allegedly been made by the Investigating Officer, however, the same was not in the presence of the complainant so as to enable her to identify the same. The recovered articles are also in possession of the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the FIR gives detailed accounts of harassment of the complainant from the very beginning. The miscarriage was also on account of beatings given by the petitioners to the complainant. A civil suit was filed by the father-in-law of the complainant in November 2010 asking the complainant and her husband to shift to some other premises knowing well that she had aborted on 25.10.2010, False allegations regarding the complainant having illicit relations with his brother-in-law (husband of sister of the husband of the complainant) were levelled by her father-in-law. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioners do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
5. It is a case arising out of a matrimonial
