MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) His is a petition for grant of bail under Section 43911of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that deceased MayaDevi was married to the petitioner about two years before the date of occur-rence. It has been alleged by the father of the deceased that he had givendowry worth Rs. 11,000.00 one cycle, watch, radio, wall clock etc. It isfurther alleged that the father of the deceased paid a sum of Rs. 20,000.00to the petitioner to start a factory, but inspite of this the petitioner and hismother used to demand further dowry. It is then alleged that the deceasedhad come to the house of her parents 15 days before the date of occurrenceand she had told her father that her-in-laws were demanding money andagainst that demand the father had paid Rs. 1300.00 and had given one sareeand blouse. It is further alleged that on 31/05/1992, the deceased wasburnt by the petitioner, his mother Gomati and his brother Montu.

(3.) Mr. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner submitted that deceased had filed a complaint before the CrimesAgainst Women Cell, New Delhi on 29.11.91, but no allegation was madeagainst the petitioner. He drew my attention to the said complaint copy ofwhich is at page 20 of the paper book, wherein it was stated by the deceased that her mother-in-law Gomati, sister-in-law Bhagwan Devi, brother-in-law (Devar) Gole and elder brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani)used to beat her and told her to bring more money from her parents. Inthis complaint she, however, stated that if her husband was ready to keepher safely she was ready to live with him in a separate house. The learnedCounsel drew my attention to the proceedings held before the C.A.W. Cellfrom December, 1991 to 30/04/1992. On 30/03/1992 thedeceased stated that her in-laws should be directed to return her articles ofdowry but on 30/04/1992 she stated that she had started living with herhusband separately and thereafter the case was closed. The learned Counsel,therefore, submitted that no case is made out under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code asthere was no demand of dowry by the petitioner. He submitted that forreturn of articles of dowry, a case could be made out under Section 406 IPCand for that offence the maximum punishment was three years.