SANDEEP GUPTA & ORS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersely, the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, are that the marriage of complainant Sumita Gupta (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with Sandeep Gupta (petitioner No.1) son of Sawroop Chand Gupta (petitioner No.2) on 13.4.2001, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies at Gupta Palace, Jagadhri. The complainant is now working in the Canara Bank, Radaur. According to the complainant that since her husband and his family members were torturing her on account of and in connection with the demand of dowry, so, she is now residing separately.

(2.) The case of complainant further proceeds as under (para 8) :-

(3.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR, in all, the prosecution claimed that all the accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, cheated the complainant, prepared and used the fabricated documents as genuine. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, by virtue of FIR No.204 dated 11.6.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC by the police of Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, in the manner depicted here-in-above.