OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed under Sec. 14 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act, 1989') against the order dtd. 3/6/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby an application filed by the present appellant for grant of anticipatory bail had been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the FIR in this case was registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by the complainant-Kanchan alleging therein that she was married with the accused Rinku on 31/8/2017. On 20/1/2022, she had filed a complaint against her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law i.e. the present appellant Om Parkash before the police but the same was got filed by her in-laws. A case under Sec. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed seeking divorce by way of mutual consent. The statement of her husband and herself during first motion had also been recorded and her in laws had returned her dowry articles and an amount of '1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to her out of which a sum of Rs.50,000.00 was paid. She alleged that at the time of recording their statements during second motion in the petition filed under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, her husband and his family members refused to make any statement by proclaiming that they had filed that petition only with a view to make the complainant withdraw the complaint filed against them. She alleged that the appellant, her husband and other members to his family used to facility her by saying that she belong to 'Chamar' caste and they could not accept her and that they would keep on dragging her in the Courts. She further alleged that on 22/3/2023, her brother had called parents in-laws in the Court premises and thereto addressed her brother and herself 'chamar' and also told that she would be allowed to come back to her matrimonial home only if she would return the dowry articles and give a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 to them. Therefore, she prayed for taking action against the culprits.

(3.) After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Present appellant had filed the appeal alongwith application for grant of anticipatory bail which had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dtd. 3/6/2023 by observing that since it could not be held prima faice that no case for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 3 of the Act 1988 was made against the appellant and therefore, their application for grant of anticipatory bail was not maintainable.