Harbans Lal Sharma vs State of Punjab

Amar Dutt, J.

Heard

The case against the petitioner, whose son was married with Anupurna, was registered in Police Station Kotwali Bhatinda, on 12.12.1999. According to the complainant, the father of the complainant had agreed to give dowry and about Rs. 5.00 lakhs were spent on the marriage. All kinds of furniture, utensils and boxes, one almirah, TV, clothes, washing machine, scooter, tape recorder, VCR and 25 tolas gold, etc. were given and the articles of dowry were handed over to Baldev Raj, nephew of the petitioner and his motherinlaw Asha Rani. The petitioner had been given Rs. 31,000/ as Shagun and the husband was given Rs. 25,000/. After the marriage, Asha Rani and Baldev Raj had, on many occasions, told the complainant to get 1/3rd share of his father''s property and they had also started taunting her about having brought less dowry. On refusal of the parents of Anupurna to accede to the demands, she had been given beatings and threats were given that she would be burnt in case she did not bring the money. Her husband borrowed a motorcycle and left her at the house of her parents. When all efforts made by her parents and other respectables for her rehabilitation did not bear fruit, she had filed the FIR.

Anticipatory bail is being sought on behalf of Harbans Lal, the petitioner, primarily on the ground that the complaint has been filed by Anupurna as a counterblast to the petition filed by his son under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her for restitution of Conjugal Rights. It is also submitted that there are no allegations against the petitioner and the only averment that has been made against him is of having received Rs. 31,000/ as Shagun, which according to Baldev Singh v. Nasir Singh, 1997(2) Recent Criminal Reports 265 and Khuman Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1998(2) Recent Criminal Reports 261 does not fall within the definition of dowry.

In these circumstances, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no assertion has been made in the FIR about the petitioner having received any part of the dowry, and this was a fit case in which concession of anticipatory bail already granted to him should be made absolute.

On behalf of the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sidhu, has strenuously tried to contest the merits of the pleas raised by the petitioner''s counsel, but when asked as to whether the police during investigation had recorded statement of any person pinpointing the name of any member of the family to whom the dowry had been entrusted he had fairly indicated on instructions from ASI Ajaib Singh that no such statement has been recorded till date. Furthermore, the assertions regarding and amount of Rs. 31,000/ having been handed over as Shagun, warrant drawing of an inference that no article of dowry had been handed over to the petitioner in view of the observations contained in 1992(2) RCR 265 and 1998(2) RCR 261 (supra) to this effect.

In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that the order passed by me on 1.2.2000 has to be made absolute. JUDGMENTed accordingly.

This order will enure till the date on which the trial Court takes cognizance of the case.

JUDGMENT accordingly.