SHYAM M SACHDEV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife of the petitioner was daughter of respondent No.2. She received burn injuries on 21/03/1989 and died on 23/03/1989. On the statement of her father, respondent No.2, FIR No. 69/89 under S.498A/304B, IPC was registered on 25/03/1989 against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 10/04/1989. The case has been committed to Sessions.

(2.) While the committal proceedings were pending, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under S.6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and S. 406 read with S.34, IPC against the petitioner and his parents. The complaint was filed on 7/07/1989, inter alia, pleading that several articles which were given before, at the time of marriage and after the marriage, have been unlawfully and illegally retained by the accused persons who have no right to retain the stridhan of the deceased and it has been prayed that summons be issued to the accused persons for offences under S.6, Dowry Prohibition Act and S. 406 read with S.34, IPC. The details of the articles have been given in Annexure 'A' to the complaint. Along with the complaint an application for issue of search warrants and seizure of the property was also filed. On 7/07/1989 the learned Magistrate directed that report be called from SHO under S. 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code' for short) for 31/08/1989. The learned Magistrate also directed that the application for issue of search warrants and seizure of the property be kept pending for further orders as prayed by the counsel for the complainant. Between the date of the order dated 7/07/1989 and submission of the report the only step which appears to have been taken by the police is to record the statements of respondent No.2 and his brother. These statements were recorded on 14/07/1989 and the report was submitted by SHO to the learned Magistrate on 14/07/1989, inter alia, praying that search warrants in respect of House No. D2/59, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi and 139A, New Colony, Gurgaon, Haryana, be issued. It appears that Kidwai Nagar premises were allotted to the petitioner by his employer, namely, Air Force Authorities. On The said report an order was made by the learned Magistrate on 15/07/1989 that "Put up with the file on the date fixed." The date fixed was 31/08/1989. However, on 24/07/1989 search warrants in respect of the aforesaid premises were issued. On 29/07/1989 an application was filed by respondent No. 2 praying that the goods seized by the police on 27/07/1989 may be returned to him on superdari on such terms and conditions as may be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the said application an order was made by the learned Magistrate on 29/07/1989 to the following effect : "S.H.O. to report on 1/08/1989. Put up on 2/08/1989 with file."

(3.) The report was submitted by the SHO according to which the locks of premises No. D-2/59, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, were broken and articles as per list were recovered and seized. The articles were identified by respondent No. 2. In regard to search of Gurgaon property from the report it appears that no article was recovered from the said premises. On 30/07/1989 report was made by the SHO that the articles mentioned in the list have been seized and are lying in the Malkhana. It appears that no proceedings took place on 2/08/1989. The file does not contain any order dated 2/08/1989. On 4th August 1989 the impmpugned order was passed directing the release of articles on Superdari to respondent No.2 on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 60,000/-.