CRM-M 24444 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 24444 of 2009 Date of Decision: 24.10.2009 Rohit Mehandiratta ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Khatkar, AAG Haryana for the respondent/State. Mr.Gaurav Khathuria, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. ( Oral) This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.245 dated 7.8.2009 under Sections 498-A/406, 323 IPC registered at Police Station SGM Nagar, Faridabad. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Gurpreet Kaur wife of the petitioner, against the petitioner and his parents Davender Mehndiratta and Kanta. In the FIR she has alleged that she was married with the petitioner on 20.2.2006 as per Hindu rites at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi. Thereafter, they resided together at 3-A14, NIT Faridabad as well as at H.No.2-K/16, NIT Faridabad. It is alleged that out of the wedlock, a male child, namely, Garv was born on 3.7.2007 who is residing with the petitioner. It is also alleged that marriage of the complainant with the petitioner was a love marriage against the wishes of her parents. It is further alleged in the FIR that after four months of the marriage, the petitioner CRM-M 24444 of 2009 -2- asked the complainant to bring Rs.5 lacs from her father which was brought by her but again after one month, they demanded a gold chain and a ring for each of the family member. It is alleged that parents of the complainant arranged three golden chains and three golden rings for the accused persons. It is further alleged that the complainant and petitioner shifted to a rented house in Faridabad for living separately from the parents of the petitioner on 9.6.2009 at about 11 P.M. The petitioner along with his father told the complainant that they want money for the purpose of marriage of the sister of the petitioner. It is also alleged that on 10.6.2009 in the morning when the complainant went to the house of her father-in-law at H.No.2-J-WH-20, NIT Faridabad to take her son back, she was given beatings. She reported the matter to police by lodging DDR No.20 dated 12.6.2009. The police lodged a calendra under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. In nut-shell, the allegations are that complainant has been subjected to cruelty by the petitioner for demand of dowry. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide his order dated 26.8.2009 on the ground that recovery of the dowry articles is to be effected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per marriage certificate (Annexure P-1) both the petitioner and complainant has married against the wishes of the parents in Arya Samaj Mandir, therefore, there is no question of any dowry or customary gifts having been given to the petitioner. Moreover, all the allegations made by the complainant are of dated 9.6.2009, 10.6.2009 and 12.6.2009 whereas on 13.9.2006, she made a complaint against her own parents to the CRM-M 24444 of 2009 -3- Superintendent of Police, Sector 12, Faridabad which was recorded as per diary No.5759P at 10.30 A.M. in which the complainant had alleged that about 2-1/2 months ago, she had gone to her parents' house who had persuaded her to take divorce from her husband in order to get married in a better family. The text of the application is as under :- “That about two and half months before I had come to my parents house and my parents persuaded me to take divorce from my husband and that I will be married in better family and in this regard my parents got a complaint submitted by me in Police Post where my husband and my mother-in-law were also present and my parents forced me and my husband to write a compromise regarding divorce after that my parents are not allowing me to go to my in-laws place. Now I have come to know that my parents with a wrong intention and by threatening to harm my husband have got the whole thing done. I am very happy with my husband and in-laws and do not want to stay with my father and mother. I want to stay with my husband. But my parents are not allowing me to go to my in- laws place and stay there. My parents continue to threaten to kill my husband and in-laws that I with my own free will and after deliberate thinking I am going to my in-laws place and that my parents should not interfere in this matter in future. You are kindly requested to protect the life of my husband and in-laws from my parents and to see that my parents do not cause interference in this matter in future.” Counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the incident dated 9.6.2009, the complainant had herself made a request to the Chowki Incharge, Faridabad that she does not want to be medically examined. It is also stated that while disposing of anticipatory bail application of the parents of the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad has observed as under : CRM-M 24444 of 2009 -4- “It is not disputed that the marriage was love marriage and no dowry was given in the marriage. There is nothing on record which could suggest that the complainant ever resided with her in-laws. Also there is nothing on record that they ever demanded Rs.5,00,000/- in dowry and gold articles. Though the complainant has placed on record receipt of gold ring and chain and the same are shown to have been given in the month of July and September 2006 but a complaint was made by the complainant on 13.9.2006 with SSP Faridabad wherein she mentioned that she was detained by her parents, who were pressurizing her to seek divorce from her husband and false application was got written by her parents in police post no.2 and a Tlaknama was forcibly obtained from her and from her husband and her parents had not allowed her to visit her in- laws. She mentioned in the application that she did not want to live with her parents at any cost. So in these circumstances, question of giving dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and gold articles in the month of July and September 2006 does not arise. Similarly, in DD no.20 got lodged by the complainant, it is mentioned that out of Rs.5,00,000/- given by her parents, a car was purchased by her husband but car is shown to have been purchased in the year 2008 and the same is financed with Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited. Also in the DDR it is mentioned that on 9.6.2009 at 11 p.m. The husband and father in law came at her rented house in Sector 15 Faridabad under the influence of liquor and she was given beatings and her son was taken away. There is no such allegation of causing beatings on 9.6.2009 in FIR No.245 dated 7.8.2009 rather she is alleged to have been given beatings on 10.6.2009. Injuries are also there in the head of Rohit Mehndiratta which is evident from his medical report.” As against this, counsel for the complainant had filed CRM Nos.49669 and 49670 of 2009 in order to place on record documents CRM-M 24444 of 2009 -5- Annexures R-1 to R-9, which was allowed on 5.10.2009, by which the complainant wanted to show that a sum of Rs.5 lacs was given to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in DDR No.20 dated 12.6.2009 which was recorded at the behest of the complainant it has been mentioned that from Rs.5 lacs ,the petitioner has purchased a Car & Scooty and started his business. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and as such, order dated 2.9.2009 is hereby made absolute. It is directed that petitioner shall keep on joining the investigation as and when called for. He shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 24.10.2009 Judge Meenu