Karan Shukla v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.8.2020 Karan Shukla ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Ms. Aanchal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Sitta, A.A.G, Punjab.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the complainant. (proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.7 dated 18.2.2020 under Sections 406/498-A/354/506 IPC at Police Station Women Cell-II, District Amritsar.

2. The FIR, in question, was lodged at the instance of petitioner's wife namely Priyanka Bhardwaj wherein it has been alleged that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 28.11.2019 with great pomp and show and that a large number of dowry articles including gold and jewellery were given at the time of marriage. However, the petitioner as well as other members of his family including petitioner's mother Devyani Shukla and petitioner's brother Shashank Shukla started harassing her and the

petitioner's mother demanded more dowry. It is further alleged that in fact petitioner's brother even misbehaved with the complainant and touched her body inappropriately.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case mainly on account of some matrimonial discord amongst the parties and that all the allegations have been cooked up falsely in order to pressurize him into some compromise and to shell out some money.

4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant has submitted that in view of serious nature of allegations and the fact that the FIR came to be lodged barely within one year of the marriage, no special case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The learned State counsel has, however, informed that pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court on 8.7.2020, the petitioner has since joined investigation.

5. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. The FIR apparently is a result of some matrimonial discord amongst the parties. The petitioner, in any case, is stated to have joined investigation. Having regard to the fact and circumstances, this Court does not find it to be a case justifying custodial interrogation. The petition, as such, is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 8.7.2020 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon to do so and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

6. It shall be open to the parties to explore the possibility of some amicable settlement. The Illaqa Magistrate, if possible conveniently during the present situation of pandemic, shall also help the parties resolve their differences, if they are keen to do so.

28.8.2020 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) kamal Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No