IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 26608 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 1, 2010. Dinesh Chawla and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.140 dated 18.06.2010, under Sections 498- A/406/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 10, Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Brief allegations are that, marriage of complainant with Neeraj Chawla i.e. brother of petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 12.02.2008. Complainant had come in the matrimonial home where the present petitioners used to reside with their parents and husband of the complainant. Complainant stayed with her husband in the joint family for about 12 days in the matrimonial home. There are specific allegations of harassment on CRM No.M-26608 of 2010 account of dowry by the present petitioners-accused during her stay in the joint family. After the marriage `1.5 lacs were also given by parents of complainant to co-accused, Neeraj and `25,000/- to Prabhu Dayal Chawla i.e. father-in-law of the complainant and father of complainant also promised to transfer `3.5 lacs once the complainant reached Sydney. On 01.12.2008 petitioner No.1 even tried to slap the complainant and at that time her husband intervened. There are allegations that during the stay of the complainant in the matrimonial home, petitioners-accused and Prabhu Dayal Chawla i.e. father-in-law of the complainant had taken away all the jewellery and gifts given to her at the time of marriage. Further allegations are that entire jewellery was in the possession of petitioner No.2, Radhika Chawla. Further allegations are that on 03.12.2008 when complainant was leaving for Australia and when she asked the petitioners-accused to return the said entrusted items, they refused to return the same. Further allegations are that after she reached Australia, both the petitioners continued to harass and torture the complainant on telephone and started instigating her husband against her. There was demand that she should handover her entire provident fund amount from her previous job to petitioner No.1 failing which she would be thrown out of the house by withdrawing her sponsorship. She was sent to India by her husband on the plea to get the dental treatment and she was asked to get the said treatment at the expense of her father and her husband told her that she should hand over her entire provident fund amount to petitioner No.1 when she reached on 09.11.2009. On 18.07.2009 petitioners created a scene by crying that they have been destroyed by this marriage and that they have taken the house on rent in the hope that complainant would work in Australia and Neeraj would send money to them. 2 CRM No.M-26608 of 2010 Petitioners-accused also asked the complainant to give her provident fund amount and bank balance. Complainant is residing in the parental home since 18.07.2009. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the complainant and her husband and in fact they had made all the efforts to persuade the husband of the complainant to come to India and however, he has not come and hence, petitioners cannot be held liable. Further contends that most of the dowry articles have already been returned. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that main dowry articles including part of the golden ornaments as per the list are yet to be recovered. He also stated that there is no allegation against mother-in-law of the complainant as she never harassed the complainant and the allegations are against the petitioners, husband and father-in-law. There are specific and serious allegations of mental as well as physical torture committed upon the complainant by the present petitioners- accused besides her husband and father-in-law. Husband of complainant did not return from Australia to settle the matter. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra- ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners- accused. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Dinesh Chawla and Radhika Chawla is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. 3 CRM No.M-26608 of 2010 Interim order dated 10.09.2010 already granted in their favour stand vacated. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 1, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 4