SUMESH CHADHA Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is stated that the petitioner is a resident of Ludhiana and happens to be the maternal uncle of the husband (residing in United Kingdom) of respondent No. 2. The marriage between Kunwar Sood and respondent No. 2 was solemnized in the month November 2019. For one reason or the other, the marriage between respondent No. 2 and her husband failed.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has got the FIR No.0112/2024 dtd. 6/6/2024 registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under Ss. 498-A and 420 IPC against the petitioner concealing the factum of divorce from respondent No. 1 and a bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that if the allegations leveled in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no prudent person can arrive at the conclusion that any offence is made out against the petitioner. It has also been urged that the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again reiterated that the close relatives of the husband are often implicated without any rhyme or reason, and this case is a classic example of what the Hon'ble Apex Court is observing time and again.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 has filed the response, stating therein that during subsistence of the marriage between the respondent No. 2 and her husband and while the respondent No.2 was living with her in-laws, she was subjected to torture, cruelty and harassment continuously by the accused persons. There are many instances when the petitioner had directly provoked the in-laws of the respondent No. 2 being the maternal uncle of her husband, which resulted in the acts of cruelty, humiliation, dowry demands, besides other acts on the parts of the petitioner, her husband and in-laws conjointly. One such incident is in respect of illegal withholding and retention of jewelry/stridhan belonging to respondent No. 2, which at the behest of the petitioner was denied. It was only due to the consistent persuasion by respondent No. 2 and her family members that the accused persons including the petitioner, agreed to return the gold and diamond ornaments of the respondent No. 2 but continues to be retained by them. The conspiracy hatched by her in-laws, husband and petitioner is self-explanatory and a triable offence. The list of jewelry items of respondent No. 2 as shared and agreed to be returned by way of an e-mail, establishes the fact that the same are of high value and is retained with an intent to misappropriate the same. Further, the petitioner was/is a nominated person of the other accused persons for returning the valuable jewelry/stridhan and other items, as agreed in the e-mail but the same has not been returned till date by the petitioner and has cheated respondent No. 2. It is stated that on 9/1/2023, the respondent No. 2 travelled from United Kingdom to India to undergo IVF treatment at the insistence of sister of the petitioner due to lower costs in India and during that time, she stayed at her parental house at Jammu for care and support. On 17/5/2023, the petitioner's nephew under the influence of the petitioner and other accused persons with mala fide intention, withdrew his consent to the IVF treatment causing significant emotional, physical and financial loss to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 had undergone two cycles of IVF treatment with the mutual understanding and explicit consent of her in-laws. However, one week prior to the final insemination, the petitioner's nephew i.e. husband of respondent No. 2 acting under the influence and direction of petitioner and accused persons withdrew the consent to the IVF treatment. This abrupt withdrawal caused significant detriment to the physical and mental health of respondent No. 2. It is stated that even when the divorce decree was passed in UK, the accused persons agreed to return the valuables etc. of the respondent No. 2 lying in UK lockers but the same have not been returned till date. The petitioner is managing whole of the affairs in India as the petitioner has been nominated by the other accused persons through which high value jewelry was to be exchanged in India. The accused persons, by not returning and continuously retaining the same illegally, had the intention to cheat from the very inception itself. It is further averred that the petitioner planned a meeting in London on 12/7/2023, insisting on his presence under the guise of reconciliation, which in reality was a pre-designed plan to harass and extort money from the respondent No. 2 and her family.