Aruna Giri v. Union Territory Of Chandigarh

-1205IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.12.2020 Aruna Giri ......Petitioner vs.

Union Territory of Chandigarh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

Present:

Mr. S.S. Sudan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. A.M. Punchhi, P.P., U.T., Chandigarh, and Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, A.P.P., U.T., Chandigarh. DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Case taken up through video conferencing.

Through the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.0115 dated 14.09.2019 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Women Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

The complainant filed a complaint with the police in which she alleged that on 22.01.2010 she got married with the petitioner's son; at the time of marriage she had brought sufficient dowry articles with her; after marriage her husband used to give her merciless beatings; beatings were given to her even when she was pregnant as a result of which she suffered

-2a miscarriage; the petitioner's son has taken her entire jewellery and given the same to the petitioner; on demand made by the complainant the jewellery was refused to be returned and in turn the petitioner gave her beatings and that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who is a 57 years old lady, has been falsely implicated in the case only on account of matrimonial discord between the complainant and the petitioner's son; there is no other criminal case in which the petitioner is involved; petitioner has nothing to do with the complainant or her son as they got married against her wishes; even if the contents of the FIR are taken as the gospel truth, though vehemently denied, the same only contain vague allegations against the petitioner; there is no medical evidence to support the case of the complainant against the petitioner and that under the interim orders passed by this Court the petitioner has not only joined the investigation but has also fully co-operated with the investigating agency.

Learned counsel for U.T., Chandigarh, submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation; she has co-operated with the investigating agency and that her custodial interrogation is not required. After considering the totality of the above facts especially the statement made by the learned counsel for U.T., Chandigarh that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that her custodial interrogation is not required, the order of this Court dated 18.02.2020 granting adinterim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

-3Nothing observed herein-above shall be considered to be an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. (Deepak Sibal) December 21, 2020 Judge R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No