Judgement - Gurdeep Singh Cheema Vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Bench: JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Gurdeep Singh Cheema vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 September, 2009

Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Adv. For the appellant.

Law Point:
False complaint, family arrest -ground for Divorce

JUDGEMENT

Prayer in the present petition is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 8.6.2009.

FIR in the present case was registered on account of a matrimonial dispute. It is a case where both husband and wife, who are the main parties to the dispute, are residing in Canada. In fact, they had left for Canada immediately after the marriage on 21.1.2008. Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein are father and mother of the husband.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 deserves to be cancelled because recovery is yet to be effected has no legs to stand. He has not been able to point out any valid ground on the basis of which the anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 could be cancelled. He has not pointed out any instance where respondents No. 2 and 3 had ever misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted to them or have not joined the investigation. Complainant-Rupinder Kaur is citizen of Canada and is residing there. Initially, complaint was made to the police. The matter was investigated and it was found that no offence was made out against respondents No. 2 and 3. Subsequently, complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. was filed in the court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered.

It is a case where the complainant and her husband resided in Canada after their marriage. The FIR was got registered in India because of certain differences between the couple. As learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any ground on the basis of which the anticipatory bail granted to Criminal Misc. No. M-27218 of 2009 [ 2] respondents No. 2 and 3 could be cancelled, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us