CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Prem Wati vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 11 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 07 P&H CK 0545

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.P. Nagrath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 323, 406, 498A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M-21913-2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 351 words

R.P. Nagrath, J.—This petition u/s 438 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 299 dated 13.6.2013, registered under Sections 498-A/406/323 IPC at Police Station Mujesar, Faridabad, District Faridabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant-Meenu Bhardwaj. There are specific allegations of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles. The petitioner has alleged that her daughter-in-law was having and affair with her maternal cousin and that is why there was a dispute. It is further submitted that Mukesh Kumar, filed a complaint dated 21.2.2013 (Annexure P-2), against his wife, namely, the complainant and also a petition (Annexure P-4) u/s 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at some length.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able point out any specific averment in Annexure P-2 and P-4 stating that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner was having illicit affair with her cousin. Otherwise the allegations in the FIR for offence under Sections 498-A/406/323 IPC are very serious. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 8.2.2013. The complainant was stated to be tortured on account of not meeting the demand of a car and a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. It is further alleged that on 11.2.2012, she was given beatings and if she had not been saved by the neighbourers that she would have been killed. Specific dates have been mentioned about the acts of physical torture. Earlier when brother of the complainant filed a complaint to the police on 8.1.2013, that the complainant was taken back to the matrimonial home on 15.2.2013. It is also stated that signatures of the complainant on some blank papers were obtained in the police station. The FIR was registered after verification by the women cell.

4.

In view of the above, no ground is made out for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

5.

Dismissed. These observations are made without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to apply for regular bail whenever an occasion comes.