Ramesh Sultania vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

Ramesh Sultania daughter of M.S. Sultania was married to Bal Raj son of Ganpat on 27.4.1994. Unfortunately, their marriage ran into rough weather. According to Ramesh Sultania, there was demand of dowry upon her by her husband, fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and other members of the family of the inlaws. Tormented by the ever increasing demand of dowry upon her by them, she got case F.I.R. No. 513 dated 16.6.1996, registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against them, at Police Station, City, Gurgaon. No dowry was recovered by the police during the investigation of case F.I.R. 513 dated 16.6.1996 ibid, nor the police investigated that case from the stand point that there was misappropriation of dowry involved so far as they were concerned and as such she instituted complaint against them under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon. That complaint was sent to Police Station City Gurgaon for investigation and registration of the case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate, Case F.I.R. No. 914 dated 21.8.1997 was registered at Police Station, City Gurgaon, under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against them in view of that complaint.

This is Crl. Misc. Petition No. 20300M of 1997 filed by Balraj whereby he has prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to him in case F.I.R. No. 914 dated 21.8.1997 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code of Police Station City Gurgaon. In support of this prayer for anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case FIR No. 513 dated 16.6.1996 ibid, Ramesh alleged only the demand of dowry and her inability to meet that demand. As a sequal to her inability to meet that demand, there was illtreatment to her by her husband, fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and other members of the family. In that case, the petitioner, his brothers and his parents were arrested and were allowed bail by the Court. The police put in challan and that case is pending adjudication in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon.

On enquiry into the complaint (ibid) the police found that the allegations in the complaint were not true. Those were found false and no case was made out against the accused. Court, however, sent that complaint to the police for reenquiry and during the reenquiry certain articles of dowry which were with the petitioner were taken into custody. No more recovery of any article is left now to be effected from the petitioner. It will be harassment to the petitioner, and other members of the family over again regarding the same subject matter which is unjust and not justified. In case of arrest, the petitioner would suffer harassment and humiliation. He would suffer suspension. It would be a stigma on his service career. His coaccused i.e. mother and father have been allowed anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide order AnnexureP1, in case F.I.R. No. 914 (ibid).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prosecuting the petitioner and others twice over regarding the same subject matter by Ramesh is an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner and his parents were arrested earlier and they were allowed bail by the Court. It wouldbe travesty of Justice if the petitioner is arrested over again regarding the same subject matter and vexed twice over. There appears logic in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In case FIR No. 513 dated 16.6.1996 ibid, there was no allegation of misappropriation of the articles of the dowry by Balraj, his parents and other members of his family. It was in the complaint which gave rise to the registration of case F.I.R. No. 914 dated 21.8.1997 ibid that there appear allegations as to misappropriation of articles of dowry. Thus, the scope of these F.I.Rs is different. It will be vexing the petitioner twice over if he is allowed to be arrested over again regarding the same matrimonial dispute with his wife. It would be unjust to put a clog on his liberty over again for the same matrimonial dispute with his wife. In Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar and others, 1997(3) RCR(Crl.) 679 : JT 1997(7) S.C.85 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court directing only investigation of the complaint but not registration of the case as a consequence of investigation. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the Magistrate could well direct the investigation of the complaint and the registration of the case. In this case what I feel is that the petitioner should be allowed anticipatory bail, so the direction given earlier is made absolute. Petitioner shall keep joining the investigations. He shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when he calls upon him to join the investigation. He will pay before him every article which constitutes "dowry." If at any time, the Investigating Officer feels that the petitioner is prevaricating and not cooperating with him, he may apply for the cancellation of the anticipatory bail to him. In the event of arrest, the Investigation Officer will call upon him to furnish bail with personal bond of Rs. 10,000/ together with the surety bond of the same amount. Investigation of this case will be monitored by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, periodically. Illaqa Magistrate will also have close watch on the case diary so as to see whether the investigation is proceeding fairly.