LALITA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LALITA and Satish Kumar Chandel, petitioners are the parents of Sanjeev Kumar, who was married with complainant Rajni Devi on 25.2.2002. Rajni got this case registered under FIR No. 134 dated 4.3.2006 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station City Karnal. The petitioners have moved this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting them anticipatory bail.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners resided at Delhi while Rajni complainant and her husband Sanjeev resided at Patiala. Sanjeev, the main accused has already been enlarged on regular bail. It is submitted by ASI Jaswant Singh, Police Station City Karnal, who is assisting the AAG, Haryana that from Sanjev Kumar all the dowry articles except ornaments were recovered. After a lapse of 4 years since the marriage, the petitioners are not expected to be interested in the dowry articles given by parents of Rajni to her husband Sanjeev. It is a general tendency that the parents and relatives of the bride-groom are involved in matrimonial cases. The learned counsel for the petitioners cites the cases of Paramjit Singh Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1990(2) RCR(Criminal) 60 (P&H); Shekhar Pandey v. State, 2004(I) A.D. (Delhi) 142 : 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 45; Manphool v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 167 (P&H) and Maqsoodan v. State of Haryana, 2002(10) SCC 97 in support of his contentions.