ANURAG SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Anurag Sachdeva son of late Jagpaul Sachdeva has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his co-accused, by way of FIR No.72 dated 29.10.2012 (Annexure P1), for the commission of offences punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.

(2.) The crux of the prosecution case, in brief in so far as relevant was, that the marriage of complainant Pooja Sachdeva d/o Bhagwan Dass (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with petitioner Anurag Sachdeva on 20.1.2010 at K.G.Resorts, Phagwara, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies. It was claimed by the complainant that about three days before the date of marriage, all the accused put a condition before her parents to perform the marriage with pump and show and to give good deal of dowry articles of high quality at the time of marriage as they belong to high status family. More than sufficient dowry articles mentioned therein the annexure attached with the complaint were given to the accused by her parents. After marriage, they started maltreating her on the ground that she had not brought dowry articles more than their expectations. They started demanding refrigerator and furniture and double bed. The parents of complainant were stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 1 lac in lieu of refrigerator and furniture as demanded by the accused, in order to settle their matter, but still, they were not satisfied. It has been specifically mentioned that petitioner came to parental house of the complainant at Phagwara and started demanding expenses for repair of car, which met with an accident while taking Doli. Her mother paid Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner.

(3.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitionerhusband taunted, harassed, tortured and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR (Annexure P1) in the manner depicted here-in-above.