AJAY PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ajay Pal son of Harbhajan Singh, Deputy Commandant (Intelligence) with Border Security Force (BSF), claiming himself to be the recommended for President Police Medal for Gallantry award, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his parents, vide FIR No. 6 dated 10.1.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498 -A IPC by the police of Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar.

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the State/complainant.

(3.) AS is evident from the record that the marriage of complainant Rajeev Kaler, Advocate, daughter of Ajmer Lal Kaler, was solemnized with the petitioner on 29.11.2009 according to Hindu rites & ceremonies at Sohal Shahnai Resort, GT Road, Opposite Khaira Bhattian Bus stand, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. A Swift car and Rs. 1 lac in cash for purchasing the furniture, besides gold ornaments and customary dowry gifts, were stated to have been given by her parents at the time of marriage. The petitioner is serving as a Deputy Commandant (Intelligence) with BSF at Gurdaspur, whereas her parents were residing at Amrik Nagri, Phagwara. It was claimed that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lac and one CRV Honda City car and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. According to petitioner, the complainant remained in her matrimonial home till 12.5.2010, whereas she (complainant) claimed that she remained there till 10.7.2010. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that petitioner was working as a Deputy Commandant (Intelligence) with BSF at Gurdaspur, whereas, the complainant was residing at Phagwara. In that eventuality, what would be the extent of cruelty to her in connection with and on account of demand of dowry by the petitioner, inter -alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. It appears to be a case of mutual disputes, where both the parties are leveling variety of cross allegations of different nature, against each other and they are facing lot of cross litigations mentioned therein in the petition. The petitioner has already filed a petition (Annexure P3) for divorce against the complainant for dissolution of their marriage u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The other complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner and his parents & sister u/ss. 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, containing similar allegations, is also pending in the Court of JMIC. The complainant is an Advocate by profession. Therefore, false implication of petitioner by her in this case, in order to wreak vengeance, cannot possibly be ruled out at this stage.