ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners, Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Harjai, Laddi Harjai and Jatin Harjai, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.127 dated 15.11.2018 at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) The FIR was lodged at the instance of Shruti Sethi against her husband Jatin Harjai, father-in-law Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Harjai and mother-in-law Laddi Harjai. The complainant alleged that she is an Advocate by profession and was married to Jatin Harjai on 9.5.2016, wherein her father had spent an amount of Rs. 35 lacs on the marriage as well as on the dowry articles. It is alleged that jewellery as well as cash amount were given to the accused and that various household articles including LED TV, washing machine, electric household goods etc. were given to the members of her in-laws family. It is further alleged that gold jewellery, which comprised stridhan was entrused to complainant's mother-in-law Smt. Laddi Harjai and her sister-in-law namely Geetika Harjai. The complainant has asserted that the accused were, however, not satisfied with the dowry and started taunting her and demanded more dowry and also a Fortuner car. It is alleged that on several occasions complainant's husband slapped her under the influence of his mother and sister in order to build up pressure for demand of car. It is also alleged that when she became pregnant she was not taken care of leading to miscarriage. The accused are also alleged to have misappropriated the articles of stridhan belonging to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that she was given beatings by the accused and other members of his family and was ultimately thrown out of her matrimonial home.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case and that the present case is infact a case of matrimonial incompatibility, which has been given colour of a criminal offence by the complainant, who herself is a lawyer as would be apparent from the long and comprehensive FIR.