HARSH RASTOGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code only) in FIR No.240/2005 registered at PS Dwarka under Sections 307/498-A/406/34 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case against the petitioner as disclosed in the FIR lodged by the wife of the petitioner is that the petitioner and complainant were married at Delhi on 26th February, 2002 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. According to the complainant, her parents spent considerable amount in the marriage and also gave cash, jewellery, electronic goods, furniture etc. According to her, right from day one of the marriage, the petitioner, his parents, his brother and wife started taunting the complainant saying that she had brought less dowry. The parents of the petitioner used to say that they were getting Rs.30 lacs as dowry for the petitioner from others. Thereafter, the complainant was tortured, beaten and harassed. As per the demand of her in-laws, she continued to bring various items from her parents including A.C., Juicer, Microwave Oven, Roti Maker, Computer etc. but they were not satisfied. According to her, once the petitioner had tried to get her kidnapped also. The petitioner and complainant started living separately in a flat at Dwarka. On 22nd January, 2005 when the complainant wanted to get some clothes stitched for attending a marriage, the petitioner told her that they would not attend the marriage and went away. In the evening, when he came back, he started quarreling with the complainant and even tore her clothes. When she went into kitchen to turn off the gas, the petitioner came from behind and threw some thinner upon her as a result of which, she caught fire. When she asked the petitioner to save her, he put a condition that he would save her only when she makes a promise that she would not tell anybody that he had put her on fire. She agreed but thereafter, the petitioner deliberately put a synthetic jacket on her face as a result of which, she suffered more burns on her face. The petitioner took her to hospital where her parents also came. She was later shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. According to the complainant, the petitioner and her parents were continuously threatening her and as such, she did not tell anybody as to what had happened to her. She alleged that because of the burns, she was not in a position to speak also. A complaint was lodged on 22.6.2005 upon which FIR was registered on 24.6.2005. According to the complainant, till the said date the petitioner and his parents were giving her threats that in case she lodged a complaint, the incident may be repeated. On 8th May, 2005 also, the petitioner had beaten her regarding which she had gone to Police Station for making a report.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was a love marriage but was performed as an arranged marriage and as such, it was a simple marriage. According to learned counsel, there was no dowry demand and the entire case against the petitioner and his family is false. It is submitted that the complainant had accidentally caught fire in kitchen in which the petitioner also burnt his hands badly while trying to save her. Learned counsel points out that in the MLC, which was prepared soon after the incident, the Complainant had stated that the injuries were accidental. On 26.1.2005, the Complainant was examined by SDM before whom also she had stated that the fire was accidental and the petitioner had also suffered burn injuries while trying to extinguish the fire. On 22.6.2005, in her complaint, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, the complainant for the first time, made allegations of dowry demands, harassment etc. and also disputed her statement made before SDM. He also points out that after her discharge from the Hospital on 20.2.2005, the complainant had gone back to her matrimonial home and her parents had also accompanied her which shows that they had no grievance against the petitioner or his family. In the discharge summary prepared at Safdarjung Hospital also, the history of the incident was given by the complainant and it was stated that it was accidental fire. It is also stated that the petitioner has been thrown out of his own flat by the complainant and his family. It is submitted that the Doctors at Channan Devi Hospital or at Safdarjung Hospital did not find any traces of thinner and did not give any opinion that the injuries suffered by the complainant were due to fire by thinner and as such, there are good grounds for holding that the allegations of attempt to murder, dowry related harassment as well as torture are false.