SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The epitome of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition, for the grant of anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, inter alia, is that the marriage of complainant-Anju Bala daughter of Rattan Lal, respondent No.2(for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with petitioner-Suresh Kumar son of Ajmer Singh on 17.11.2003, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Yamunanagar. Her parents were stated to have given sufficient dowry articles, gold ornaments and spent an amount of Rs.10 lacs at the time of marriage beyond their capacity. But the petitioner and his other co-accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles and they started taunting the complainant for bringing insufficient dowry. The petitioner has also taunted her on the ground that the dowry articles which were given in the marriage were of inferior quality and her parents lowered down their dignity and status in the society by not giving motorcycle in the marriage. He started demanding motorcycle and Rs.1 lac in cash. She showed her inability to fulfill his illegal demand due to paucity of funds with her parents, but in vain. The petitioner started beating the complainant and compelled her to fulfill his demand. On 22.09.2004, the complainant gave birth to a daughter but after the birth of the child, the accused started again taunting her that she gave birth to a female child instead of male child. He has mentally tortured her as well.

(2.) Sequelly, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that in the month of April 2005, the petitioner started pressurizing her to bring motorcycle from her parents and he started beating her. She narrated the entire tale of woe to her parents. Consequently, her father gave an amount of Rs.25,000/- as down payment for the purchase of motorcycle. He purchased the motorcycle for Rs.85,000/- after arranging a loan of Rs.60,000/- from the HDFC Bank and all the installments were paid from the salary of the complainant. The petitioner was stated to have snatched all the salary of the complainant and even did not provide any amount for her maintenance. He repeatedly pressurized her to bring money from her parents. On 08.02.2006, the petitioner gave beatings and turned her out of the matrimonial home with the condition that until & unless she would not bring money from her parents, he will not permit her to live in the matrimonial home. Finding no alternative, she borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from her friend Neetu and gave to the accused. However, things did not change. Thereafter, the petitioner again started demanding car and Rs.5 lacs for the purchase of house.

(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, gold ornaments and cash were given at the time of marriage and after marriage, but petitioner and his other co-accused were not satisfied. The petitioner-husband taunted, harassed, tortured and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. Even, 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 other co-accused, vide FIR No.255 dated 20.07.2014(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 Farrukhpur, District Yamunanagar, in the manner depicted here-in-above.