Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.316 dated 01.05.2010, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents-in-law whereas petitioner No.3 is married brother-in-law of daughter of the complainant. Daughter of the complainant was married with co-accused, Dinesh Goyal on 11.05.2005 CRM No.M-19690 of 2010 2 at Bathinda. `10,00,000/- were spent by the complainant in the marriage as per the demand of the in-laws of the daughter of the complainant. `1,00,000/- in cash and `2,00,000/- in cash for purchase of car, one gold bracelet, one gold ring and a suit was entrusted to co-accused Dinesh Goyal, a gold kara, `51,000/- in cash and a suit were entrusted to petitioner-accused Ramesh Goyal, a pair of gold bangles, `51,000/- in cash and suit were entrusted to the petitioner-accused Nirmala Devi, a gold chain, `21,000/- in cash and suit were entrusted to petitioner-accused Ghansham Dass and a pair of gold bangles and suit were entrusted to sister-in-law of the daughter of the complainant. Further, golden ornaments of the daughter of the complainant were entrusted to her husband, the co-accused. Hence, the golden ornaments weighing 121.380 gms. and other dowry articles, details of which has been given in the complaint were also entrusted. `95,000 were spent on food etc. for the entertainment of the marriage party. However, just after the marriage, the in-laws of the daughter of complainant i.e. the present petitioners and co- accused, Dinesh Goyal started harassing and humiliating her on account of dowry. There was demand of `2,00,000/-. Petitioner-accused, Nirmala Devi alongwith her daughter used to confine her in a room without food. On being informed by the daughter of the complainant, `15,000 were also paid to co- accused, Dinesh Goyal on 25.05.2006 and however, petitioners-accused were not satisfied. In September, 2006 a female child was born to the daughter of complainant and however, petitioners-accused had shown dissatisfaction on the birth of female baby. At that time as well, demand of dowry was raised. All the petitioners-accused and husband of the daughter of the complainant again raised demand of `2,00,000 when she returned to the matrimonial home with the new born baby. In October, 2006 complainant left his CRM No.M-19690 of 2010 3 daughter at the house of petitioners-accused and `50,000 in cash was entrusted to co-accused Dinesh Goyal besides other gifts and clothes. However, they were not satisfied. In the first week of January, 2008, the complainant again entrusted `20,000/- in cash to petitioner-accused Nirmala Devi. However, they continued to harass and humiliate the daughter of the complainant and raised demand of `3,00,000/-. There are specific allegations of beatings being given to the daughter of the complainant by the petitioners- accused Nirmala Devi, co-accused Dinesh Goyal and Kiran Bala. It has been alleged that on 26.01.2008 Kiran Bala caught the daughter of the complainant with hair and petitioner-accused Nirmala Devi and co-accused Dinesh Goyal gave slaps and fist blows. The petitioner-accused Ramesh Goyal and Ghansham Lal kept on exhorting the other accused to beat the daughter of the complainant. Thereafter, they turned the daughter of the complainant out of matrimonial home alongwith her minor daughter with the threat to bring `3,00,000/-. A Panchayat was convened. However, in the Panchayat demand of `3,00,000/- was raised and harsh words were used. Again Panchayat was convened. A sum of `1,50,000/- were entrusted to co-accused Dinesh Goyal. After taking the said amount, the daughter of the complainant was taken to matrimonial home and however, the demand continued. A complaint dated 08.09.2009 was also given by the daughter of complainant to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda and inquiry was got conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. During the course of inquiry, a compromise was also effected between the parties. However, even the said compromise was not adhered to by the petitioners-accused and co-accused Dinesh Goyal. Physical torture of the daughter of the complainant continued. On 20.08.2009, she was again subjected to beatings and turned out of CRM No.M-19690 of 2010 4 matrimonial home in wearing clothes by retaining all her gold ornaments and dowry articles. Hence, there are specific allegations of physical and mental torture being committed upon the daughter of the complainant by the petitioners-accused and co-accused Dinesh Goyal i.e. the husband of the daughter of the complainant. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.3 being brother-in-law was already married before the marriage of daughter of the complainant and used to live separate with his family. Further contended that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the parents-in-law of the daughter of the complainant also used to live separate and they had also disowned their son. Further contended that husband has already been arrested and dowry articles have been recovered. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that though petitioner No.3 used to live separate from the family and however, parents-in-law used to live in a joint family with their son and daughter of the complainant. Further contended that some dowry articles including jewellery which were specifically entrusted to the present petitioners, have not been recovered so far. This court while issuing notice of motion on 14.07.2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.34833 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-19690 of 2010 Argues that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are parents-in-law, whereas petitioner no.3 is the brother-in-law of the daughter of the complainant. Further argues that petitioner no.3 was married even before the marriage of daughter of the complainant and used to live separate. Further argues that even daughter of the complainant and her husband started living separate from CRM No.M-19690 of 2010 5 petitioner nos.1 and 2. Further contended that husband of daughter of the complainant has already been arrested in this case and hence no recovery is to be effected from the present petitioners. Notice of motion for 5.8.2010. However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 14.07.2010. It has been stated by learned counsel for the State that though petitioners have joined the investigation and however, recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected. So far as the petitioner No.3 is concerned, he is brother of the husband of daughter of the complainant and was already married before the marriage of daughter of the complainant and used to live separate from them and hence, he has nothing to do with the married life of his brother. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner No.3 is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed qua petitioner No.3-Ghansham Lal, is accepted and order dated 14.07.2010 granting interim bail qua him is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. CRM No.M-19690 of 2010 6 However, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents-in-law. There are specific allegations of various acts of physical and mental torture being committed by them alongwith their son, Dinesh Goyal upon the daughter of complainant. Specific allegations of demand of dowry have also been made against them. Though interim bail was granted in favour of them however, they failed to get recovered the dowry articles, which were entrusted to them. Hence, in view of serious allegations against petitioner Nos.1 and 2, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused, Ramesh Kumar and Nirmla Devi. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 – Ramesh Kumar and Nirmla Devi is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim order of bail dated 14.07.2010 already granted qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2 stand vacated. September 7, 2010. 'om' ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE