RAJNISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition, for anticipatory bail, as claimed by the prosecution and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant Monika Sharma, daughter of Dharam Pal Sharma (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with petitioner Rajnish Sharma son of Shiv Chand, on 31.5.2010 with great pump and show, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies. Her parents spent about Rs.15 lacs and gave sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage. The petitioner & his other co-accused were not satisfied and proclaimed that the parents of complainant did not give the dowry articles & big car as per their status. They demanded a sum of Rs.4 lacs for purchasing a car. Her parents were unable to fulfill their illegal demand on account of paucity of funds as such and gave a cheque of Rs.2,30,000/- to purchase a maruti car to the petitioner. He came to her parental house and demanded Rs.2 lacs more from her father. On her refusal, the petitioner and his other co-accused became annoyed and fixed six months' time to fulfill their demand. Even he did not purchase the car from the amount of Rs.2,30,000/- already given to him by her parents. The accused started taunting harassing and treating her with cruelty. The petitioner again demanded Rs.3 lacs on the pretext of going to Dubai.

(2.) Sequelly, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 1.10.2010, the parents of complainant visited her matrimonial home and requested the accused not to harass her. They declared that if they are unable to fulfill their demand, they would take her daughter back and need not to come to Saharanpur. After reaching Yamuna Nagar, mother of complainant sold her golden bangles and gave Rs.3 lacs to the accused with the hope of peaceful life of her daughter, but in vain. On 10.6.2011, the petitioner gave beating to the complainant on the pretext of giving small amount of Rs.3 lacs and called her parents as beggars. Even during the period of her pregnancy, she was not provided any treatment and asked her to bring Rs.50,000/- for delivery from her parents. Ultimately, she was turned out of her matrimonial home in the first week of November, 2011. However, her father arranged Rs.50,000/- and paid to the accused with the request to take care and proper provide medical treatment to the complainant.

(3.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR, in all, according to the complainant that although the indicated dowry articles and cash were given at the time of marriage and after marriage, but petitioner-husband taunted, harassed, tortured and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. The accused have refused to return and misappropriated the dowry articles of the complainant. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner & his parents, vide FIR No.46 dated 23.1.2014 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 498- A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar.