Umesh vs State of Haryana

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—The petitioner is husband of complainant Pooja. He apprehends arrest in a case registered at the instance of Pooja

alleging that she had been treated with cruelty and her dowry articles stand misappropriated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had made a statement before this court on 3.10.2011 at the time of preliminary hearing that the petitioner is

ready for reconciliation and resume cohabitation with the complainant. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre. A perusal of the

mediation proceedings indicates that relations of the petitioner had been appearing on different dates. The petitioner, however, appeared on

15.11.2011 but subsequently he did not appear and report of the mediators indicates that there is no possibility of any amicable settlement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended Cr.Misc. that the intention of the petitioner is apparent from his having filed a

petition for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said petition was filed much prior to the lodging of the FIR. He has

also contended that the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty are wrong.

Learned counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the petition for pre-arrest bail. It has been brought to the notice of the court that

during pendency of the mediation proceedings, the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction impleading the complainant and the

investigating officer as defendants. An injunction has been sought against the complainant and the investigating officer from forcibly taking

possession of the goods from the house of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the complainant, who is adamant not to join the matrimonial home as she has imposed

certain unacceptable conditions upon the petitioner to resume cohabitation.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The allegations of maltreatment are prima facie apparent from the manner in which the

petitioner has been taking steps to abuse the process of law to harass the complainant. There was absolutely no occasion for the petitioner to drag

the complainant and the investigating officer to a civil court, that too at Delhi by filing a civil suit in October, 2011. The filing of petition u/s 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioner appears to be merely a camouflage to create a fake defence, anticipating the lodging of the FIR on the

ground of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles. It is pertinent to observe here that no recoveries have been effected. No extra ordinary

exceptional circumstances exist for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

This order will not prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail by surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate or the

investigating officer or to file a fresh petition in case the matter is amicably settled out of court.