LAWS(P&H)-2018-3-23

DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On March 08, 2018
DARSHAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.17 dated 10.03.2016 under Sections 498A / 406 / 494 / 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant, in fact, had left the matrimonial home in the year 2009. Marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the complainant in the year 2007. The present FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive after an explained delay. Moreover, the matter was compromised between the parties on 21.09.2009 as reflected in the document attached as Annexure P2 (Talaqnama) with this petition whereby it was decided between the parties that they would dissolve their marriage. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was handed over to the complainant at that time, though it is not denied that there is no substantive proof of the said amount being handed over to the complainant.The complainant, it is alleged, is living with another person. Reference is made to a document (Annexure P3) purportedly issued by the Gram Panchayat, village Azizpur. The petitioner, it is submitted, has joined investigation. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition while refuting the averments that any divorce was ever sought or granted to the parties. To the contrary the petitioner, it is submitted, has solemnized second marriage without seeking divorce from the complainant and children are also born out of this illegal alliance. Allegations of the complainant having remarried or living with any other person are denied being incorrect. It is stated that the complainant is living in her parental home. Her mother has recently passed away. Moreover despite various opportunities, the petitioner did not come forward for effective mediation. He has not come present despite a specific direction by this Court neither have the litigation/travelling expenses of Rs.12,000/- been handed over to respondent No.2 as directed by this Court. It is thus prayed that this petition be dismissed.