Komal Yadav v. State Of Haryana





IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 08.08.2023 KOMAL YADAV ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Jagjit S. Gill, Advocate for the complainant. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 13.02.2023, the following order was passed : "Present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.81 dated 13.03.2022, under Sections 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-9 A, District Gurugram. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at the behest of complainant, namely Yogesh Yadav s/o Chhaju Ram, who is the brother-in-law of petitioner, on account of the matrimonial dispute going on between the petitioner and her in-laws. It is submitted that Smt. Nirmal Yadav was the original owner of the house in question and she never sold it to anybody at any point of time.

The said house was given by Smt. Nirmal Yadav to the petitioner by way of registered Will and General Power of Attorney dated 15.05.2015 and neither father-in-law nor brother-in-law of the petitioner has any concern with the house in dispute. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any forgery with regard to the house in question. Learned counsel contends that the present FIR No.81 dated 13.03.

-22023:PHHC:102013 as a counter blast to the case FIR No.603 dated 28.10.2021, registered at the behest of petitioner against her husband, namely Dharminder Yadav, and wife of complainant, namely Brij Lata, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, at Police Station Aravali Vihar,


 

    

 !"#    $  %"

!%! &  '(  $ " )% "   %*%! + $  )  

 

   !   ,   ,  !"#    $  %"

!%! & 

,- "   %*%! + $  )  

)%   ! !      ..

         !     ! 

   !

 ! 

     / 0%  -.

1  "     -    
2%$   $      $ !$  % !%  

%!" 3 %"#  

! !

 ! ,  / 0% -.

1

%" !  $ !"#  &%")  -- & .

 2%$   !%    %" .

% !

  # 5         !#" $  !"

 "# %!! & *%!$ 2%%$  3! !  !

 !   '#  %  !"#  !%     %   5  !

%"  % 0 4  !% %"     !# !

 $      3 $     !    6% !  "#  )3 $ $$ # !  !"#% %  !&  %       $%! %    7 3     # !     .

% !

  #5    !#" $  !

"

 "# %!! & *%!$ 2%%$  3!

! !

 !   ' 4 ''  ' )      3        "   !  !  "

       )3 $ $ $  8   7 3          3 $   !  !  !"# 3 $ $ $ # !

  "! "#   !! !! %! &  '(/ 1-

-32023:PHHC:102013 2.

Ld. State Counsel on instructions from ASI Narender submits that though the petitioner has joined the investigation but is required as the Sale Deed/GPA is yet to be recovered.

3.

In the considered opinion of this Court the State Authorities being the custodian of the record related to registered document(s) can well dig out the same from the official records and for that custodial interrogation of the petitioner will not be required. That apart, from the allegations levelled in the FIR it is discernible that it is a case wherein the complainant is fighting a battle against her brother-in-law claiming ownership over a property claimed to be owned by her father-in-law Chhaju Ram. It prima facie appears to be a case of a discord between the family based on documentary evidence.

4.

In the circumstances, the order dated 13.02.2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C.

5.

The petitions stands disposed off.

August 08, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No