NAVEEN KUMAR MEHTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The petitioners, Naveen Kumar Mehta, and his parents namely, Y.R. Mehta and Smt. Kamal Mehta, seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. 60 dated 1.4.1998, registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur, under Sections 406/498-A/323/34 IPC. Naveen Kumar Mehta/petitioner No. 1 was married, with Vandana Mehta, complainant/respondent No. 2 on 13.6.1993. She alleged maltreatment, harassment and torture at the hands of the petitioners for demand of dowry comprising of a scooter and refrigerator. Out of the wed-lock, a male child was born to respondent No. 2 on 18.8.1994. After 5-6 months of the delivery, respondent No. 2 was brought to the house of the petitioners when the respectables intervened in the matter. She was, however, turned out again. Things became worst in the month of December, 1997 when two incidents allegedly took place. On 20.12.1997, an attempt is alleged to have been made by the petitioners to burn the respondent No. 2 by pouring kerosene oil which, however, could not succeed. Some writings were allegedly obtained under compulsion and threat on blank papers. A letter was lateron written by respondent No. 2 to her parents on 21.12.1997, narrating the incident that happened on December 20, 1997. The second incident is alleged to have taken place on 27.12.1997, when allegedly a wooden rod was pierced and penetrated into the vagina of respondent No. 2.

(2.) MR . R.S. Cheema, learned Senior Counsel contended that the medical examination of respondent No. 2 conducted on 5.1.1998 at 8.45 P.M. belied the allegation made regarding the second incident inasmuch as no swelling or injury was found on the vulva, vagina and the area around. There was no discolouration present. Apart from it, it was contended that respondent No. 2 had approached the Women Cell of police station Mahila, where a compromise is said to have been effected, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P2. The compromise, which was effected is mentioned in para 1 thereof as under :-

(3.) MS . Saloni Sharma, appearing for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, contended that the allegations in this case are specific and they show the seriousness of the matter and the respondent No. 2 had been facing torture and harassment during this period at the hands of the petitioners. She further contended that not only this, the child of respondent No. 2 is with the petitioners, for whose custody proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act had already been initiated, which are going on ex parte now.