High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/23370/2020dismissed

Vijay Mahajan v. State Of Punjab

2024-02-07Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari10 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23370-2020 Date of Decision : February 07, 2024 VIJAY MAHAJAN -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

-RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. R.S. Bains, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Aman Raj Bawa, Advocate and Mr. Anmol Deep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.

Through this second petition, the petitioner, an affluent property dealer, again craves for indulgence of this Court, for him being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.30 dated 24.02.2016, under Sections 494, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC, registered at P.S. Division No.4, Ludhiana.

The petitioner has, in order to escape from the clutches of law, used all dilatory tactics and made false assurances, which unfortunately resulted in his remaining successful too, to some extent, inasmuch as, consequent upon his arrest in the present FIR, he enjoyed liberty either through reaping the concession of interim anticipatory bail, or, interim bail. 3.

Since the present case has a chequered history, therefore, before proceeding to gauge the merits of the instant petition and penning

down any opinion, it would be apt to initially enumerate the factual backdrop of the case.

The genesis of the prosecution case is embodied in the complaint made by one Sonika Mahajan, wife of the petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'), on the allegations that, the petitioner had, during subsistence of his first marriage with her, solemnized second marriage with one Neha. She further alleged that the petitioner had even forged her income tax returns and used the same in the proceedings of their matrimonial cases.

In the instant case, the petitioner had solemnized marriage with the complainant on 17.01.2000, which resulted in them becoming blessed with three children, who are now grownups. However, in the year 2011, the petitioner abandoned his family and subsequently, in the year 2013, he even filed a divorce petition. Shockingly, during pendency of the divorce petition and during subsistence of his marriage, the petitioner performed another marriage with one Neha on 24.03.2014. The second marriage of the petitioner was confirmed in a police raid, whereupon, he was found living with another woman.

It would be apt to record here that, during investigation, the police seized the copy of a divorce order passed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, thereby dissolving the marriage of the complainant with the petitioners. However, the said divorce order is of no significance, inasmuch as, neither the marriage of the complainant and petitioner occurred there, nor they ever visited there.

Since the petitioner had abandoned the complainant and their children, and, was not maintaining them, the latter were constrained to

institute a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Through the maintenance petition (supra), the complainant and her children yielded fruits, inasmuch as, vide order dated 17.05.2014, maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.95,000/- per month was awarded to them.

The petitioner had, instead of making payment of maintenance (supra), and, in order to avoid his liability of maintenance, dragged the complainant upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, his efforts turned futile, inasmuch as, the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner against the maintenance order (supra) was dismissed in limine vide order dated 06.02.2015. Moreover, the divorce petition (supra) was also dismissed by the learned Court concerned in the year 2015. 9.

Consequent upon registration of the present FIR, since the petitioner failed to secure the relief of anticipatory bail from the learned trial Court concerned, he accessed this Court by filing CRM-M-15960-2016 and was successful in obtaining the relief of anticipatory bail vide order dated 08.09.2017. This relief of anticipatory bail was anchored upon a settlement proposal, besides being made and assured to be fulfilled by the petitioner, becoming accepted by the complainant also. The relevant extract of order dated 08.09.2017 is reproduced hereinafter:- "...A settlement has been reached between the parties that the petitioner-husband shall transfer Flat No.28, First Floor, Nirmal Chayya Apartment, Block No.C, Near Mata Nirmal Gujri Gurudwara, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, in the name of the complainantwife.

He shall further transfer one property equivalent to the value of Rupees ninety lakh or the property equivalent to the value of Rupees seventy lakh and the remaining amount of Rupees twenty lakh by way of demand draft or through RTGS in favour of the children.

from today. The valuation of the said property shall be done by a mutually agreed surveyor, certified/approved by the PUDA/Improvement Trust. The value of such property should be approximately Rupees seventy lakh and free from all encumbrances. After identifying such a property, the petitioner shall transfer the same immediately in the name of the children and the balance amount of Rupees twenty lakh be paid by way of demand draft or through RTGS in favour of the children, within a month thereafter. The complainant-wife/respondent No.2, present in person, states that this proposal is acceptable to her and she shall withdraw all the cases filed by her against the petitioner or his family members. She further undertakes to file a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent Court and make a statement that the compromise has been reached..." 10.

Since the assurance (supra) was made by the petitioner only with a malafide intention to secure his liberty, without there being any intention on his part to make efforts to honor the same, the complainant was driven to move an application bearing No. CRM-34550-2017, in CRM-M15960-2016, thereby seeking cancellation of bail, as granted to the petitioner vide order dated 08.09.2017

" #

$$%&$%'(

%(%)$%'*

$$%&$%'(

! "# $#%

% '

'% ( ) % *& (% $ +# +% , -% .

- ,0+1 0 %

1 2!*

3 $- )

"# $#

(

( %

(

! )

(

5 '' .

+ !

!/0 1%%*2'%$%'(

%)'%$%'(

145"5"6&7"$%')

'%%'$%') '$

+ !

90: ;

'$%2$%') .

$7%*$%') '2 <

45"5"67)2("$%')

'&%&$%$%

5 2%%6$%$%

! 62*7

2%%6$%$% $7%&$%$%,

$7%&$%$%

45"5"'6%&&"

$%$%

%6%7$%$%,

= ! > '(%*$%$% '6 .

%(%)$%'* <

$(%($%$% ,

$(%($%$%

!- %

-% 1

& -

. 1

(

& %

)-%

( : $-

4 $-

$%$%

, /

'( ,

5 +

%(%)$%'*

$% ,

"@" A

%(%)$%'*

4' %% %%% "

3<5 B 5

$' 5

$$ 0

(KULDEEP TIWARI) February 07, 2024 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No