Anil Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.07.2024 ANIL KUMAR ......APPELLANT Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .........RESPONDENTS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present:- Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate, for the appellant.
***** HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN J.
1.
!
" "
##$# $ % "
&' ( ! )' "
" '
%*+
) ) , '#-.*/ 0
)12
"
(34 %5% $ ## $ *'
*6%*6%7*.5/ 2/ 2*.. 6$5
3,)
*/#2 /2
' )
' !" /,
2
#-+-/
0
#-+-12 ,
" 2.
The appellant had earlier filed an appeal assailing the same order which was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 12.02.2024 in CRA-S320-2024 (Annexure P-5). 8
"
"
!
7 '
"
(34
''
$+$6 $ % /
9' ,7*2 " 9 "
9
##$5 $ %/
9' ,7%2 * 8
'
% 3
'
7" 6 :
# $ $ %/
9',762
"
"
' ;' <
"
7
"
=7 >8
7
'
9' "'
9 !
?'
9
'"
'
'
@
5 !
"
=7 >6 3
5!
&'
"
" "
'
9 9
'" 3 '
"
#+
)A !
"
"
%*+),) "
!
'
?' .
'
9
'
9 '
"
"
"
9"'
"
7!
71 ' 3 $ #
9 '
'" '
!
9
'
$### $ *
9
;
'
"'
+=$$,
'
9
'
B
"'
##=$$,
9 !
9
'" ) 9
'
+3 '
$6
'
9 (34 #6 5$6 $ *
C
,
'"
9
"
9 "
' 3
' 9
!
"
9 "
"'
'
9 '
!
9/
9' ,7.2 " '
"
, -!
(34 "
"'
$6
(34
9' "'
9 !
9
'
'
#5%),) $*## $ * "
)
&' /
9'47 2 #$
' '
9 8 '
'
*$# $ *
"
&' ( )
##!
','
(34 "
9
"
'
'
#.* ),)
"
)' '
'(34 # )
'
7 "
!
'
"
&'
"
'
'
##$# $ % "
&' '
) ?'
"
@ 7.
A perusal of the facts and circumstances as noticed in the previous order, indicate that both the appellant and the prosecutrix are married to their respective spouses. In the FIR, the prosecutrix has alleged that the appellant Anil Kumar is her distant relative. It is also observed that the counsel representing respondent No. 2 has opposed the appeal, on the
ground that the appellant is a police officer. He is constantly harassing and sexually abusing the prosecutrix. The acquaintance of the appellant and threatening the prosecutrix of involving her husband in a false case of drug smuggling. Whereas the appellant has challenged the same order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, on the ground that there is change of circumstances, on the basis of compromise deed, dated 08.05.2024 (Annexure P-3), wherein it is alleged that the appellant and the prosecutrix came in contact with each other in January 2021 and thereafter, they decide to have live-in relationship. The prosecutrix started the live-in relationship with the present appellant with her consent and without any pressure as she was not happy with her marriage. It is further alleged that both the parties are having live-in relationship since April 2021 and they got executed a live-in relationship deed on 01.04.2021 and since then they are contentiously living in the said relationship.
8.
Firstly, the appeal stands already decided on merits and the respondent has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of threats. Secondly, in case the said compromise is accepted, this would be against the public policy, since both, the appellant and respondent No. 2complainant are married to their respective spouses. The Court cannot stamp a live-in relationship inter se two married persons by granting them the concession of pre-arrest bail by way of accepting the present appeal. Polygamy is not permitted under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and permitting such a relationship by allowing the appeal and granting the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant would give a wrong signal to the society, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
appellant cannot re-agitate the matter by filing the second appeal on the strength of the said compromise deed.
9.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in Indra Sharma vs. K.V. Sharma (2013) 15 SCC 755, while dealing with the question of whether a relationship between an unmarried woman and a married man could qualify as a live-in relationship as defined under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, categorically held that the respondent who was a married person could not have entered into a live-in relationship of the nature of a marriage. All live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. It was further observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court that if the relationship between the appellant (unmarried woman) and respondent (married man) is considered as a relationship in the nature of marriage, with the sanction of the Court, grave injustice would happen to the legally wedded wife and the children who oppose the relationship.
10.
In view of these reasons, the present appeal stands dismissed. 11.
" ""
" "
'
'"
"
)'
"
A
" 12.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
July 12, 2024 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether reportable Yes