RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.