VISHAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose off anticipatory bail application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. moved in FIR No. 665 dtd. 5/11/2018 under Ss. 323, 377, 406, 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC and Sec. 376(1) IPC which is added later on, Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, District Hisar.

(2.) In her complaint, complainant-Anika claimed that present petitioner Vishal Verma and she got married in Mohali in a Hotel on 21/7/2018 wherein huge dowry and costly gifts were given to the boy and other family members. After the marriage, it is alleged that the husband-petitioner Vishal Verma misbehaved with the complainant and forced her into unnatural sex and she was physically tortured and on refusal of the complainant, she was physically abused. Subsequently, when the dispute could not be sorted out, the complainant brought the matter to the notice of her parents as well as in-laws but to no avail and subsequently on the basis of her complaint the present case was got registered.

(3.) Shri P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner at the very onset contends that the petitioner had joined the investigation and has sought to contend that the complainant was earlier married to one Sukhwinder Singh on 22/4/2014 at Hisar and she left the matrimonial home on 7/4/2014 and got lodged a false FIR against the then previous husband and, thereafter, fleecing him of Rs.10,00,000.00 compromising the matter and securing a divorce. Submitting that in a same fashion, the present case has been brought about further contending that the father of the girl as per his statement claims to have retired as SDO PWD Hisar when he as per the RTI information collected by the petitioner's family was working as a road inspector and has rather duped the family of the boy alleging that there is neither any allegation of specific entrustment much less any case of breach of trust. It is argued that under the amended definition of Sec. 375 IPC being grown up such an sexual intercourse does not fall within the definition of rape and even offence under Sec. 377 IPC becomes doubtful on account of lack of medical evidence. It is argued that much of the allegations regarding gold jewellery and costly gifts do not fall within the terminology of "istridhan" though which have been returned back are only falling within the scope of gifts submitting that it was a second marriage of both the parties and, therefore, giving huge dowry or lavish marriage is unacceptable and has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.