Crl.M.No.M-35656 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-35656 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 6, 2010 Radhika Chawla and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mrs.S.R.Padhy, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.140/2010, dated 18.6.2010, under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 10, Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully. This is second application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioners-accused. The first application for anticipatory bail on the same facts was dismissed on merit vide detailed order of this Court dated 1.11.2010 passed in Crl.M.No.M-26608 of 2010. Brief allegations are that marriage of complainant with Neeraj Chawla, i.e., brother of petitioner no.2 was solemnised on 12.2.2008. 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 account of dowry by the present petitioners-accused during her stay in the joint family. After the marriage Rs.1.5 lacs were also given by the parents of the complainant to co-accused Neeraj. Rs.25,000/- were also given to father-in-law of the complainant and father of the complainant also promised to transfer Rs.3.5 lacs once the complainant reached Sydney. Crl.M.No.M-35656 of 2010 (O&M) -2- There are allegations that on 1.12.2008, petitioner no.2-Dinesh Chawla, tried to slap the complainant and however her husband intervened. There are allegations that during the stay of the complainant in the matrimonial home, the petitioners-accused and father-in-law of the complainant had taken away all the jewellery given to her at the time of marriage. Further allegations are that entire jewellery was in the possession of petitioner No.1-Radhika. Further allegations are that on 3.12.2008, when the complainant was leaving for Australia and when she asked the petitioners-accused to return the said entrusted items, they refused to return the same. There are allegations that after complainant reached Australia, both the petitioners- accused continued to harass and torture her on telephone and used to instigate her husband against her. There was demand that she should hand over her entire provident fund amount from her previous job to petitioner no.2, 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 her dental treatment and she was asked to get the said dental treatment at the expense of her father and her husband told her that she should also hand over her entire provident fund amount to petitioner no.2. On 18.7.2009, 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. Petitioners-accused also asked the complainant to give her provident fund amount and bank balance. Complainant is residing in her parental home since 18.7.2009. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the complainant and, in fact there was a compromise and most of the dowry articles have already been returned. There are specific and serious allegations of mental as well as physical torture committed upon the complainant by the present petitioners- accused, besides the husband and father-in-law. Husband of the complainant did not return from Australia to settle the matter. In view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners- Crl.M.No.M-35656 of 2010 (O&M) -3- accused. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Radhika Chawla and Dinesh Chawla for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 6.12.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge