SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. ANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is now confined to the case of petitioner No.4 Miss Anju Mehta only. The petition in so far as it related to petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 has already been dismissed by my predecessor by order dated 2.2.1998.

(2.) PETITIONER No.4 Miss Anju Mehta is employed in the State Bank of Patiala. Initially, she was posted at Samana, District Patiala in 1991 and thereafter she was shifted to Patiala itself, and is presently working as a Stenographer with the Deputy General Manager. In support of that, Annexure P -2 dated 15.1.1998 has been filed which indicates her continuous service in the Bank of Patiala from 16.10.1991 onwards. It further indicates that she was not supposed to leave the head quarters without prior permission. This averment in the petition supported by Annexure P -2 has not been controverted by filing a counter reply by the, respondent/complainant. Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that Annexure P. 2 cannot be acted upon as such. I am unable to accept that for the reason that the averments in the petition have not been challenged by filing reply. From Annexure P -2, it is clear that during the time when the complainant married and later stayed in her matrimonial home at Ambala till she left it in 1994, petitioner No.4 was employed at Patiala and was supposed to attend her duties during that time. Counsel for the respondent contended that as per para 2 of the complaint at the time of wedding ceremony, the clothes of the bridgegroom were handed over to petitioner Miss Anu Mehta. If this averment is considered at par, it clearly means that petitioner No.4 was only acting as watch and ward for these clothes and not that she had been given those clothes for keeping with her until demanded by the rightful person. There is nothing to show in the complaint that these clothes were all along retained by petitioner No.4, despite demand by the rightful owner to return the same. Morevover, there does not seem to be a grievance from the bridegroom regard to the custody of the clothes of the bridegroom.

(3.) IN para 11 of the complaint, it is stted that petitioner Anu Mehta along with Ms. Kiran Bhatia created the life of the complainant bell while acting in a dominsting manner. That averment also is not sufficient to show her complicity in view of Annexure P -2, petitioner No.4 is an unmarried girl, serving in the Bank.