AMIT KUMAR Vs. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure moved by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.54/2014 under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Mansarovar Park.

(2.) THE FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of complaint made by Ms. Pallavi Chandra alleging demand of dowry by her husband and in -laws, assault, torture and physical harassment. It was alleged that when the complainant got married with the petitioner ­ Amit Kumar on 24.11.2012, a sum of Rs.18 to 20 lac was spent in marriage. A cheque of Rs.3.50 lac was given in the name of her husband ­ Amit Kumar besides a sum of Rs.51,000/ - in cash in the engagement ceremony. It was a love -cum -arranged marriage as she knew Amit Kumar since 2009. The petitioner ­ Amit Kumar was working with her father in AIIMS. Her father was not agreeable for the marriage because of the bad character of Amit Kumar. There are further allegations that a sum of Rs.4 lac was taken by Amit Kumar for incurring expenses on his marriage from different sources and after marriage, the amount was taken from the complainant for repayment. There are further allegations to the effect that after marriage her mother -in -law demanded entire money of ATM and money earned before marriage which she refused to give. Then Amit Kumar took out her ATM Card from the purse and given the same to his mother. Her entire jewellery articles were taken by the accused and handed over to his mother. Her husband on the asking of his mother used to sleep with his bhabhi. It was further alleged that her mother -in -law and sister -in -law pressed her throat. She was also administered something in the cold drinks as a result of which she was admitted in AIIMS Casualty. Thereafter, she started living with her husband in a separate house. However, things did not improve as such she prayed action against them.

(3.) IT was submitted by Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner ­ Amit Kumar that after marriage, the parties lived together hardly for three months. Pursuant to an information given by mother of the petitioner regarding quarrel, the matter was referred to Delhi Government Mediation and Conciliation Centre on the allegations of temperamental differences and with the intervention of Mediation Centre, the matter was settled. The complainant was in dominating position as her father used to be the boss of the petitioner. The complainant herself is working as Sub Inspector in CRPF. The parties started living together in a separate house and it was agreed that both will contribute equally to purchase a house, but after contributing Rs.2.50 lac out of Rs.12.50 lac, the complainant did not pay any amount and therefore the petitioner was compelled to take assistance of his brother who contributed for purchase of the house. As such, a sale deed was executed in the joint name of the petitioner and his brother. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction which is pending in Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Although the house was purchased by the petitioner with the assistance of his brother, however, the house is in possession of the complainant and the petitioner is out of the house and ran away fearing for his life. It was further submitted that the allegation of the complainant that she was administered some poisonous substance in cold drink and, therefore, she had to be admitted in AIIMS Casualty was negated by the report of the doctor who opined that the there was no smell of poison and the complainant was referred to a psychiatrist and as such it was a false allegation. Her allegation that a sum of Rs.3.50 lac was given by way of a cheque at the time of engagement ceremony again is falsified by her own complaint wherein it is alleged that the cheque was returned to her by the family members of the petitioner. It was further urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that prior to filing of the present complaint, the petitioner had informed the SHO Police Station Farsh Bazar regarding misuse of his driving license, voter identity card, gmail account and other important documents by the complainant. The complainant hacked the gmail account of the petitioner and started generating email on his behalf. No action, however, was taken by the police pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner to SHO Police Station Farsh Bazar in this regard. When the petitioner moved the anticipatory bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the complainant produced certain emails purportedly sent by the petitioner to the complainant. In these emails produced by the complainant, certain unsavoury remarks were made against the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court and as such the application was dismissed. Even the second anticipatory bail application was dismissed and while rejecting the bail application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge heavily relied upon the emails produced by the complainant. However, now an FIR has been registered against the complainant under IT Act and various provisions of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation and even wrote a number of letters to the Investigating Officer of the case that he is ready and willing to join investigation. In the status report submitted by the State, it is alleged that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of Istridhan articles of the complainant. It was further submitted that the complainant is in possession of the house and in fact all the articles of the complainant are lying with her. Even otherwise, in the complaint itself, averment has been made that the articles are lying with the mother -in -law. The family members of the petitioner have already been released on bail. Moreover, reliance was placed on Jagdish Thakkar v State of Delhi, 1992 (3) CCR 2764 for submitting that these are not proceedings for recovery of articles. Lastly, it was urged that the petitioner has roots in the society. He is a government servant working in AIIMS as such there is no chance of his fleeing away from justice. He was granted interim protection and has never misused the concession of the same. Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.