SONAL SAHNI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the Petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 112/2010 under Sec. 376 Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at P.S. Maurya Enclave.

(2.) The allegations as set out in the complaint are that when the Complainant was 15 years old while coming home from the school she used to meet the Petitioner towards whom she got attracted and they started meeting each other and after several months their parents came to know about their friendship. On this, the parents of both the Petitioner and the Complainant talked with each other and it was decided that they would perform the engagement however the marriage would be performed only after the complainant/prosecutrix attains the age of 18 years. They were engaged on 12th July, 2008. After the engagement, the Petitioner started visiting the house of the prosecutrix. He stated that there is no difference between the marriage and engagement and used to pressurise her to have physical relationship. On one such incident, he brought her to meet his family members in his house. However, on reaching the house, she found there was nobody. It is alleged that on the pretext of his love he made physical relations with her without her consent and continued making the same thereafter. After some time she informed her parents who spoke to the parents of the Petitioner who stated that they knew about it and since she was going to be their daughter-in-law so there was no harm. It is further alleged that while establishing the physical relationship, Petitioner even took Rs. 30,000.00 from her which she saved from her pocket money. Thereafter, the Petitioner stated that in case she wanted to marry him she should arrange Rs. 10 lacs from her parents. It is further alleged that Rs. 5 lacs were demanded for preparing a floor in the house. There were other demands also and finally after the families met the disputes were resolved and it was decided that the parties would sit in the first week of May to decide the date of marriage. However, thereafter the attitude of the Petitioner changed. He took the prosecutrix to his house and established physical relations with her and threatened her and stated that she should be ready for divorce since she would not keep her for long time. In a nutshell, it is alleged that the Petitioner after the engagement established physical relations with her and harassed mentally and physically.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that though the prosecutrix?s mother had given a complaint but she did not act for some time and asked the SHO to keep it in abeyance as they are trying to settled the matter. The allegations as set out show that the prosecutrix was in love with the Petitioner and thus, in view of that infatuation and young age both of them fell in love with each other. No offence under Sec. 376 Indian Penal Code is made out as the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21st Aug., 2010. The false allegations of rape and dowry have been levelled against the Petitioner because the Petitioner?s family was not agreeing to marriage because the prosecutrix had not attained the age of 18 years. The Petitioner is not involved in any other case and he has no criminal antecedents.