CHAKRAWARTY DADA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 20 dated 10.4.2012, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana, under Sections 498-A, 406, 120-B IPC.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier the complainant had filed an application which was consigned to the record room on 11.11.2011 by order of the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana after the same matter was investigated by the ADCP-3. However, this contention of the learned counsel will not cut much ice because earlier the complaint was consigned to the record room because, according to the ADCP-3, the aggrieved wife was residing at the house of her in-laws and had also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The ADCP had also observed that since Chakravarti Dada, petitioner herein, had also filed a divorce petition in the court of District Judge, Jalandhar, no need was felt to initiate proceedings on the application of the complainant. The Commissioner of Police had passed a non-speaking order and had simply consigned the complaint to the record room. Subsequently, the same complaint has been thoroughly examined.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby bail was granted to the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, it is mentioned that the recovery of articles has been effected from the petitioners, therefore, they should be granted bail. Learned counsel has also referred to the list of articles annexed with the petition.