{"id":52896,"date":"2008-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-04-27T11:09:20","modified_gmt":"2015-04-27T05:39:20","slug":"dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006                -1-\n\n\n                 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh\n                                        ******\n<\/pre>\n
                                      Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006
\n                                      Date of Decision:   01.7.2008<\/p>\n
Dr. Atul Bansal                                                …. Petitioner
\n                                            vs
\nThe State of Haryana and another                               …. Respondents<\/p>\n
Before:            Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal<\/p>\n
Present:           Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with
\n                   Shri Gaurav Hooda, Shri Alok Jain and
\n                   Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocates, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                   Shri Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
\n                   for respondent no. 1.\n<\/p>\n
                   Shri Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
                                        ***<\/p>\n
Rajesh Bindal J.\n<\/p>\n
1.                 The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.111
\ndated 12.03.2005, registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 376(2G), 506 read
\nwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City, Rohtak,
\nagainst the petitioner and his other family members. The quashing is prayed
\nfor only by the petitioner, the husband of respondent No.2\/complainant.\n<\/p>\n
2.                 From the facts on the record, it transpires that the main parties
\nto the dispute i.e the petitioner as well as respondent No.2\/complainant after
\ngetting a decree of divorce in England are residing in England and the
\npresent litigation is being fought by their family members residing in India,
\nas their attorneys.\n<\/p>\n
3.                 Briefly, the facts as are evident from the pleadings on record
\nare that the marriage of the petitioner was settled with respondent No.2, in
\nresponse to an advertisement on the Web site issued by respondent
\nNo.2\/complainant. At that time the respondent No.2 was a divorcee,
\nresiding in England with Medical Management as her qualification. The
\npetitioner, who is doctor by profession is also settled in England. One of the
\nclose relative of respondent No.2\/complainant, is also residing in England
\nand with his intervention, the marriage was settled. Initial ceremony was
\n Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
held in England on February 14, 2004. Thereafter, as per the allegations, the
\nmarriage was solemnized at Rohtak on June 02, 2004. On July 02, 2004, the
\ncouple left for England and respondent No.2\/complainant came back to
\nIndia on March 03, 2005. The first information report came to be recorded
\nwith various allegations including harassment, demand of dowry and even
\nthe allegation of sexual harassment against the father of the petitioner on
\nMarch 12, 2005. Thereafter, respondent No.2\/complainant again left for
\nEngland and is presently residing there. Both the parties are fighting present
\nlitigation in India in various courts through their attorneys. The prayer in
\nthe present petition is for quashing of FIR and all subsequent proceedings
\narising therefrom on behalf of the petitioner\/ husband.\n<\/p>\n
4.                 Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold arguments,
\nnamely-that the courts in India do not have the jurisdiction to entertain and
\ntry the dispute, as no cause of action as alleged in the FIR, has arisen within
\nthe territorial jurisdiction of the courts in India; secondly- even if for
\narguments sake it is considered that the courts in India have the jurisdiction
\nstill from a plain reading of the contents of the FIR, no offence is made out
\nagainst the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
5.                 To buttress the contention, the learned senior counsel submitted
\nthat admittedly at the time of engagement both the parties were living in
\nEngland, the Sagun ceremony was solemnized in England. It was only a
\nsmall get together which was held at Rohtak. Though the marriage is stated
\nto be solemnized at Rohtak on June 2, 2004, however, the parties got
\nmarried again in England on October 27, 2004 showing themselves to be
\nbachelors. A copy of an entry of marriage pursuant to the Marriage Act,
\n1949 (In England), has been placed on the record as Annexure P-3. A
\nperusal of the certificate, Annexure P-3, shows that the date of marriage was
\nmentioned as July 28, 2004. Admittedly, on that date, the parties were not in
\nIndia as they had already left for England on July 04, 2004. Further, it is
\nsubmitted that the fact that respondent No.2\/ complainant, was already a
\ndivorcee, is evident of the fact that that she could not settle herself even in
\nher first matrimonial home. From the allegations, all that can be inferred is
\nthat there were temperamental differences between the parties because of
\nwhich they could not settle in the matrimonial home. Even in the FIR, there
\nare no specific allegations against the petitioner. The same are quite general
\n Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006                  -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
in nature. As is evident, the FIR has been got drafted from a legally trained
\nmind, levelling allegations against each of the family members though
\nvague in nature.\n<\/p>\n
6.                 Further, it is submitted that in fact in a divorce petition filed by
\nthe complainant\/respondent No.2, in England on August 08, 2005, a decree
\nof divorce has already been passed by the High Court of Justice, Principal
\nRegistry of the Family Division on July 27, 2006 in terms of Section 42 of
\nthe Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act, 1984 (England). By virtue of
\nthe order dated July 27, 2006 (Annexure P-11), the preliminary decree of
\ndivorce passed on February 9, 2006 was made absolute and the marriage
\nwas dissolved. Inspite of the fact that the marriage between the parties had
\nalready been dissolved, still the prosecution is sought to be continued which
\nis only with a view to harass the petitioner and his other family members.\n<\/p>\n
7.                 Still further, the submission is that the falsification of the stand
\ntaken by the respondent no.2\/complainant, in the FIR is evident from the
\nfact that there are contradictions in the statement made by her at various
\nstages, where she has tried to improve the allegations. Further, respondent
\nNo.2 is even guilty of concealment of facts in court in England. At the time
\nof filing of divorce petition it was specifically mentioned by her that there
\nare no proceedings continuing in any country outside England in respect of
\nthe marriage between the parties. This statement was made at the time of
\nfiling of the petition for divorce on August 08, 2005. In addition to this, it
\nwas mentioned in the divorce petition that the marriage between the parties
\nwas solemnized on July 28, 2004 in England, whereas prior to the date of
\nfiling of petition for divorce in England, respondent No.2\/complainant, had
\nalready got the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner and his
\nfamily members on March 12, 2005. And as per allegations in the FIR the
\nmarriage was solemnised at Rohtak on June 2, 2004.\n<\/p>\n
8.                 In fact, respondent No.2 is sailing in two boats at the same
\ntime. Firstly, on the basis of alleged marriage which was solemnized at
\nRohtak on June 02, 2004, the impugned FIR was got registered against the
\npetitioner and his family members under various sections of the Indian
\nPenal Code, on March 12, 2005 whereas on the basis of marriage
\nsolemnized in England on July 28, 2004, independent proceedings were
\ninitiated in England where even divorce was also granted. Still further, the
\n Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006                         -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
submission is that the vindictive attitude of the family is evident from the
\nconduct of respondent No.2\/complainant who filed a complaint for
\nprofessional mis-conduct before the Professional Conduct Committee of the
\nGeneral Medical Council, London, against the petitioner where she stated
\nthat the complainant was married with the petitioner on June 24, 2004 and
\nthereafter she was being maltreated and there was demand of dowry as well.
\nHowever, on investigation by the General Medical Council, the material
\nfurnished by respondent No.2\/complainant, was not found to be sufficient
\nwith regard to any professional misconduct on the part of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
9.                 With a view to take the arguments to the logical end, it was
\nsubmitted that the entire dispute between the parties, after the filing of the
\ndivorce petitioner by respondent No.2\/complainant, in England was settled
\nby way of compromise arrived at between the parties in the presence of
\nrespectable on September 11, 2005 (Annexure P-8) in which it was agreed
\nthat all the cases between the parties shall be withdrawn and the parties will
\nmove for divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner was to give a cheque of
\npounds 16000 in London and a sum of Rs. 11,00,000\/- at Sonipat. The
\nremaining           dowry            articles   were   stated    to   be      with   respondent
\nNo.2\/complainant or were lying deposited in the Police Station, which
\nrespondent No.2\/complainant was at liberty to take. However, even this
\ncompromise was also not honoured by the complainant\/ respondent No.2,
\nand the effort of the respondent No.2 is mainly to harass the petitioner and
\nhis family members inspite of the fact that the parties have already
\nseparated.\n<\/p>\n
10.                It is not disputed by the petitioner that a cheque of 16000
\npounds was deposited by the uncle of respondent No.2 in the account of the
\npetitioner in England which money was not even touched by the petitioner
\nand is still lying there and number of times it was stated by the petitioner
\nthat the same can be taken back by the respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
11.                Another            self   contradictory stand      taken     by respondent
\nNo.2\/complainant is regarding her visit to India. In the FIR, the statement is
\nthat it was at the asking of the petitioner that respondent No.2 came to India
\nto live with his parents on March 03, 2005. However, in the complaint
\nbefore the General Medical Council, Anexure P-6, the statement was that in
\nthe end of August 2004 the petitioner told the complainant that he had his
\n Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
job in Birmingham for four weeks and was leaving for that place. When the
\ncomplainant did not come to know the whereabouts of her husband, on
\ninquiry from her in-laws (the parents of the petitioner), she came to know
\nthat the petitioner was in India. It was in terms of this information that the
\ncomplainant went to India to sort out the differences.\n<\/p>\n
12.                Similar is the submission with regard to the allegations
\nregarding petitioner’s pressing respondent No.2\/complainant to get her hair
\ncut and get them dye. In the divorce petition, it was mentioned that it was
\naround August 14, that the petitioner forced the complainant to cut her hair
\nand get the same coloured, whereas, in the supplementary statement
\nrecorded before the police on June 22, 2005 it was stated that when the
\nparties were to go to London in July, 2004 immediately after the marriage,
\nthe petitioner took the complainant to get her hair cut against her wish and
\nalso get the same coloured with red and green. All these contradictions
\nclearly established that the story put up by respondent No.2\/complainant, is
\ntotally false, fabricated and concocted.\n<\/p>\n
13.                As far as the allegations regarding entrustment of dowry
\narticles and demand of dowry, against the petitioner is concerned, it is
\nsubmitted that Sagun ceremony was admittedly held in England. As far as
\nthe marriage is concerned, there are two different stands. One is that the
\nmarriage was solemnized on June 02, 2004 at Rohtak, whereas as per the
\nversion of the complainant\/ respondent No.2, the marriage was solemnized
\nin England on July 28, 2004. The alleged demand and deposit of a sum of
\nPounds 16000 in the account of the petitioner also took place in England.,
\nEven the           false and concocted allegations regarding harassment of the
\ncomplainant at the hands of the petitioner, are also in England. It is only a
\nbald allegation made in the first information report that a necklace worth Rs.
\nOne Lakh was handed over to the petitioner at the time of marriage.
\nOtherwise no other dowry article was handed over to him. Even this
\nallegation in the FIR is patently false on the face of it, for the reason that the
\npetitioner was to do nothing with the diamond necklace as the same was to
\nbe used and worn by respondent No.2\/complainant, only. Reliance has been
\nplaced upon Y.Abraham Ajith and others vs Inspector of Police Chennai
\nand<\/a> another 2004(8) SCC 100, Anil Kumar vs Rita Kumari 1999(1) R.C.R.
\n(Criminal) 813, Anju Bala and others vs State of Punjab and<\/a> another 2006
\n Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006                -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
(3) RCR (Criminal) 191, B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and
\nanother AIR 2003 SC 1386 and Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India
\nand others<\/a> 2005 (6) SCC 281.\n<\/p>\n
14.                In response to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.2\/complainant
\nsubmitted that the marriage was solemnized at Rohtak only and it was
\nmerely got registered in England. He further submitted that there are
\nspecific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR. When the matter is
\nunder investigation, this court should not exercise its extra ordinary
\njurisdiction to quash the FIR. For that reliance has been placed upon State
\nof Karnataka and another vs Pastor P.Raju 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 859.
\nAs part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of court at
\nRohtak, the case set up by the petitioner that the FIR and all subsequent
\nproceedings against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed because of
\nlack of territorial jurisdiction, has no legs to stand. However, the facts stated
\nin the marriage certificate regarding the parties being bachelor on the date
\nwhen the marriage was solemnized in England and further the fact that the
\nallegations regarding maltreatment and            demand of dowry against the
\npetitioner being in England after the parties had left India on July 04, 2004
\nand further the demand and deposit of 16000 pounds in England could not
\nbe disputed as the same are borne out from the statements made by the
\ncomplainant herself at various stages. The only contention was regarding
\nhanding over of Diamond Set worth Rs. one lakh to the petitioner at the
\ntime of marriage. The prayer is for dismissal of the petition as no case for
\nquashing of FIR is made out.\n<\/p>\n
15.                The learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner
\nshould not be heard on merits, as after the grant of pre-arrest bail, he left
\nIndia without permission.\n<\/p>\n
16.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
\nmaterial on the record, I find this to be a fit case where this Court should
\nexercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction to come to the rescue of the petitioner
\nwho is sought to be harassed in a proxy war by respondent No.2\/
\ncomplainant. Admittedly before marriage, after marriage and even after a
\ndecree of divorce was passed by the court of competent jurisdiction in
\nEngland, both the petitioner and respondent No.2\/complainant are living in
\n Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006                -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
England. It is only because the laws in India are more stringent and tilt in
\nfavour of the women, the same are sought to be misused by respondent
\nNo.2\/ the complainant and his family members to settle the scores with the
\npetitioner and his family members. Respondent No.2 has even gone to the
\nextent of levelling allegation of rape against the father of the petitioner in
\nthe FIR. Though in her statement before the Profession Conduct Committee
\nof the General Medical Council, it was stated that the father of the petitioner
\nhad assaulted her. However as this issue is not under consideration before
\nthis Court, in the present petition, the father of the petitioner being not the
\npetitioner before this Court, no opinion is being expressed thereon.\n<\/p>\n
17.                A plain reading of the FIR shows that the entire allegations run
\nonly against the parents of the petitioner regarding demand of dowry before
\nthe marriage. Admittedly, Shagun ceremony was solemnized in England on
\nFebruary 14, 2004. After the bald allegation that the gold ornaments of the
\ncomplainant were entrusted to all the accused, specific allegations were
\nsought to be made that one Diamond Set worth Rs. One Lakh was entrusted
\nto the petitioner, whereas the others were entrusted to the parents in law and
\nsister in law. There is no reason as to why the gold ornaments belonging to
\nthe complainant were entrusted to different persons in part. Still further the
\nonly bald allegation is that the entire istri-dhan which was given at the time
\nof marriage was kept by the parents and sister of the petitioner, when the
\npetitioner along with the complainant left for England.\n<\/p>\n
18.                Further from the facts on record it is clear that in the case in
\nhand the complainant is indulging in forum hopping. It is not disputed that
\nmarriage of the parties was solemnized at Rohtak on June 2, 2004.
\nThereafter, again the marriage was solemnized in England on July 28, 2004.
\nWhen the parties could not settle in their matrimonial home, the respondent
\nno.2\/complainant filed application for dissolution of marriage in the High
\nCourt of Justice, Principal Registry of the Family Division, England, where
\na decree of divorce was passed on July 7, 2006 and the marriage between
\nthe parties was dissolved. When issue came regarding filing of complaint
\nagainst the petitioner and his family members, the provisions of IPC were
\nsought to be relied upon and impugned FIR was got registered at Rohtak on
\nMarch 12, 2005, stating that the marriage between the parties was
\nsolemnized at Rohtak, whereas in the divorce petition filed in England, it
\n Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006                       -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
was stated that the marriage between the parites was solemnized in England.
\nWith a view to ensure that jurisdiction of the court in England is not ousted
\nin the divorce proceedings, respondent No.2\/complainant even concealed
\nthe factum of the impugned FIR already pending in India out of the
\nmatrimonial dispute between the parties, in the petition filed for divorce in
\nEngland.\n<\/p>\n
19.                It is further evident that a compromise was arrived at between
\nthe parties on September 11, 2005 which was reduced into writing
\n(Annexure P-8), however, as per the assertion of the petitioner the same was
\nresiled by the respondent no.2\/complainant with an intention to harass the
\npetitioner. The contents of the compromise are extracted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
                           “Today i.e. 11.9.2005, a Panchayat was convened
\n                           regarding the matrimonial dispute between the children
\n                           of Shri Mukesh Kumar and Shri Surinder Kumar at the
\n                           residence of Attar Singh and both the parties have
\n                           entered into a compromise. Both the parties will be
\n                           bound by the following conditions:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            1.       The divorce will be given with the mutual
\n                                     consent of boy and girl.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            2.       All the cases would be withdrawn.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            3.       The boy would give the cheque of Punds 16000
\n                                     in London and would give Rs. 11,00,000\/- in
\n                                     Sonepat.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     The remaining articles are with the girl and are
\n                           lying deposed in Police Station and the girl would get
\n                           the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     Shri Bhagwan Dass and Shri Satpal Mor would
\n                           be responsible on behalf of party from Narwana and
\n                           Attar Singh would be responsible for the party of
\n                           Rohtak.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20.                In reply to para 11 of the petition where the averments
\nregarding the compromise have been made by the petitioner, the factum of
\ncompromise was admitted. However, it was stated that it was the petitioner
\nwho had failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in the compromise. For
\nthat reason only the compromise could not be given effect to. Before this
\n Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006                -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
court, the definite stand of the petitioner was that he was always ready and
\nwilling to adhere to the terms of the compromise and even still ready.\n<\/p>\n
21.                Other undisputed facts on record are that the parties have
\nalready separated by way of a decree of divorce passed in England. Further
\nas is evident from the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-
\nI, Rohtak, on March 3, 2005, the value of the dowry articles had already
\nbeen recovered from the complainant’s father-in-law after his arrest on
\nMarch 12, 2005. As regards 16000 Pounds deposited in the account of
\npetitioner by the uncle of the complainant is concerned, the stand of the
\npetitioner before this court throughout had been that he has not touched that
\namount ever. The amount is still lying deposited in his account and he is
\nready and willing to return the same to the complainant or her uncle at any
\ntime. Even at the time of hearing of the present case also the same stand was
\nreiterated.\n<\/p>\n
22.                In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, the continuance
\nprosecution of the petitioner in the present case even after the matter was
\ncompromised between the parties is nothing else but abuse of process of
\nlaw, especially in a case where the petitioner and his divorced wife are
\nliving in England and only the present litigation is going on in India.\n<\/p>\n
23.                Accordingly, the impugned FIR No.111 dated 12.03.2005,
\nregistered under Sections 406, 498-A, 376(2G), 506 read with Section 34 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City, Rohtak, and all subsequent
\nproceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner. However, the
\nsame shall be subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as laid down in
\ncompromise\/settlement (Annexure P-8), in terms of which the petitioner
\nwas liable to return 16000 Pounds to the respondent no.2\/complainant and
\npay another sum of Rs.11 lacs at Sonepat to the parents of the respondent
\nno.2\/complainant. The respondent no.2\/complainant shall be entitled to get
\nthe possession of dowry articles lying in the police custody in terms of the
\ncompromise. Needful be done within a period of one month from the date of
\nreceipt of certified copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
24.                The petition is disposed of in the terms indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
01.7.2008                                                  (Rajesh Bindal)\nvs                                                              Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008 Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh ****** Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 Date of Decision: 01.7.2008 Dr. Atul Bansal …. Petitioner vs The State of Haryana […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52896","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-27T05:39:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-27T05:39:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3477,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-27T05:39:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-27T05:39:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-27T05:39:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008"},"wordCount":3477,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008","name":"Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-27T05:39:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-atul-bansal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Atul Bansal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 1 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52896","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52896"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52896\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52896"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52896"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52896"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}