SAPNA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.216 dated 11.12.2019 registered under Section 306 IPC, at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar Rural.

(2.) The allegations, in brief, are that the son of the complainant was married with petitioner No.l on 27.02.2019. However, right from day one, petitioner No.l, in collusion with her father, used to harass the son of the complainant. Reason for this was that the complainant happeed to be abroad and in India only the wife of the complainant and his son used to reside. As per the allegations petitioner No.l used to repeatedly harass her husband-deceased and his mother, insisting that she should be sent abroad. The deceased son and the wife of the complainant used to inform the complainant on phone in this regard. Additionally she also developed illicit relations with another person and intended to marry him. In these entire events, even the sisters of the complainant used to instigate her. As per the allegations, petitioner No.2, who is serving in police, also used to threaten the deceased all the time. Feeling harassed to the maximum, the deceased consumed poison and ended his life. Just two days before this incident, the complainant received a call from the Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur that Sapna-petitioner No.l had moved a complaint against the deceased and the complainant and that the complainant had to appear before the police on 09.12.2019. In this situation, the deceased committed suicide on next day i.e. on 10.12.2019. Hence the present FIR has been registered.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case against the petitioners is totally concocted. They have never instigated or harassed or humiliated the deceased or the complainant. Still further it is submitted that; rather; it was deceased and the complainant who were harassing petitioner No.l. Therefore, petitioner No.2 had lodged a complaint with the police against the deceased and the complainant. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that, in fact, history of the family of the complainant shows that the complainant had earlier got married. However, he had divorced his wife. Thereafter he married again. At present it is his second wife only who is alive. Even the deceased son of the complainant was earlier married. However, that marriage ended just after eight months. The marriage of petitioner No.l with the deceased was also the second marriage. Hence, the sequence of the events would show as to under what kind of pressure the deceased might have been and he might have gone in depression on account of these situations. Therefore, it is only because of the mental weakness created by this depression, which might have led the deceased to end his life. It is further submitted that in fact on 07.12.2019, petitioner No.l was shunted out of the house and had gone to her maternal uncle. Petitioner No.2 had lodged a complaint with the police on 08.12.2019 against the complainant and his son-deceased and on 10.12.2019 the son of the complainant committed suicide. Hence, petitioner No.l could not be held responsible because she was already away from the house and she had already raised her grievance qua harassment by the complainant and the deceased. To buttress his claim the counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 687 and K V. Prakash Babu versus State of Kamataka, 2017(1) RCR (Criminal) 60; one judgment rendered by High Court of Allahabad in case Asha Shukla versus State of UP and another, 2002 Crl L.J. 2233 and one judgment rendered by High Court of Gujarat in case State of Gujarat versus Pradyuman Ramanlal Mehta and others, 1999 Crl L.J. 736.