SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No. 21 dated 09.01.2013, under Sections 498A/406/323/506 IPC, registered at police station Sadar Karnal, District Karnal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record.

(2.) BRIEF allegations are that, marriage of petitioner was performed with complainant on 21.11.2011 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Parents of complainant had spent an amount of more than Rs. 10,00,000/ - in the marriage beyond their means. However, petitioner and other family members were not satisfied with the same. They used to harass her and used to maltreat her on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Pressure was made upon the complainant to bring a Maruti Swift car as dowry from her parents. Even on the second day of the marriage, sister -in -law of complainant taunted her that she had brought inferior quality of clothes and gave filthy abuses to her. Petitioner also slapped her just after two days of the marriage by saying that she was having no business to argue with his sisters and parents. When she told this fact to her parents, they alongwith some other persons visited the matrimonial home of complainant and however, they were badly insulted by petitioner and co -accused and they were told that if they were not able to give Maruti Swift car, they should take their daughter with them. However, they tolerated all these things in the hope that things would improve with the passage of time. An amount of Rs. 25,000/ - was given to each of the three sisters -in -law of the complainant and father of complainant assured petitioner and family members that he would arrange money for fulfilling their demand of car. There are allegations that every night petitioner used to beat the complainant while under the influence of liquor and used to say that she was not a girl of his choice. He also said that he wanted to marry with some other girl. Lateron, complainant came to know that petitioner was having extra marital relations with a married women, namely, Shaboo and even after the marriage, he used to wander here and there with that lady. There are specific allegations that on 16.12.2011, petitioner had gone to Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) with the said lady and when she objected, he raised a threat to her that if she would tell this fact to anybody, he would give her beatings. On 29.12.2011, petitioner was caught red -handed with the said lady, namely, Shaboo in a compromising position by mother -in -law of that lady i.e. complainant of FIR No. 422 dated 29.12.2011, under Sections 376/511/452/506 IPC, police station Sector 31, Chandigarh and he was arrested in that case. Thereafter, it was told to her by her father -in -law that in case petitioner would be convicted in that case, she would live with her brother -in -law as his wife. When she objected, her brother -in -law told her that he would give divorce to his wife and he would live with her. She was turned out of the matrimonial home on 30.12.2011 by her in -laws with the direction that she should bring Rs. 5,00,000/ - if she wanted to live in the matrimonial home as the said amount was to be spent for acquittal of her husband. Panchayats were also held but to no effect and since then complainant is living with her parents and all the dowry articles were also misappropriated.

(3.) HOWEVER , even perusal of judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in FIR No. 422 dated 29.12.2011 shows that it was stated by mother -in -law of the lady with whom petitioner was residing, i.e. complainant in that case that petitioner was having illicit relations with the said lady.