Crl. Misc. No.M-25501 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
Crl. Misc. No.M-25501 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION: 02.07.2009
****
Yashvinderjit Gupta
. . . . Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab
. . . . Respondent
****
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
****
Present: Mr.A.D.S. Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent.
Mr.J.S. Chahal, Advocate for the complainant.
****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR
No.179 dated 21.8.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered
at Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala.
At the time of notice of motion dated 22.9.2008 to the
A.G. Punjab, arrest of the petitioner was stayed.
On 27.11.2008, following order was passed:
“Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on
instructions from the concerned police official, has
represented that pursuant to the order of this
Court dated 1.10.2008, the petitioner has joined
Crl. Misc. No.M-25501 of 2008 -2-the investigation and is no more required for this
purpose.
However, learned counsel for the complainant
opposed the bail application mainly on the ground
that dowry articles are still lying with the
petitioner and the same have not been returned
and, as such, the concession of anticipatory bail be
not extended to the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner was / is
ready to handover each and every article of dowry
lying with him to the complainant, but it was the
complainant who refused to accept the same.
In this situation, when the investigation has been
joined by the petitioner, he is fully co-operating
with the investigating agency and is no more
required for investigation purposes as disclosed by
the State counsel, the interim bail granted to the
petitioner vide order dated 1.10.2008 is made
absolute.
In reply to a query by this Court, learned counsel
representing the complainant has even requested
that the fact regarding demand and acceptance of
dowry and giving of dowry be got probed from the
police and if the parties are found guilty, they
should be suitably punished.
In this case, the factum of demand and acceptance
of dowry and giving of dowry is amply clear as per
contentions put forth by the learned counsel
representing the petitioner and the complainant.
Crl. Misc. No.M-25501 of 2008 -3-
The object of introducing the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 was to avoid the evil practice of giving
and taking of dowry. As there was clear violation
of the provision of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 in the instant case, as noticed above, the
Station House Officer of the concerned Police
Station is directed to investigate the matter
thoroughly and if he finds violations of the
provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
register case under the relevant provisions of the
Act. Further progress in the case be intimated to
this Court by the next date of hearing.
To come up on 8.1.2009″
Pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2008, Inspector
Pritpal Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines,
Patiala has filed an affidavit dated 21.1.2009, in which he has
stated “that I have thoroughly investigated the matter as per the
direction of the Hon’ble High Court. During my investigation no
violation of the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made
out.
Since, the anticipatory bail has already been made
absolute and the compliance has been made to the direction given
by this Court dated 27.11.2008, nothing has been left out to be
decided.
In view of the above, the Criminal Misc. Petition is
disposed of.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
JULY 02, 2009 JUDGE
vivek