Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 974 (PNJ)

Sat Pal Sethi v. State Of Haryana

2000-08-24

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail. I have heard the Counsels for both the sides and perused the record F.I.R. No. 141 dated 24.6.2000 has been registered under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506 and 23, I.P.C. at Police Station Mahesh Nagar on the statement of Neeraj, 1st petitioner-Sat Pal Sethi and second petitioner-Kamlesh Sethi are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the petitioner. Third petitioner Geeta, fourth petitioner Meenakshi, fifth petitioner Dolly are the sisters-in-law of the complainant whereas 6th petitioner Rajesh is the husband of the fifth petitioner Dolly. The marriage between the complainant and her husband-Ashish Sethi took place on 17.12.1999. 2. The complainant has alleged that after the marriage her parents had given Rs. 21,000/- but she has not mentioned to whom the same was given. Though she has alleged that some time after the marriage her in-laws started beating her demanding dowry, she has not specifically mentioned as to who beat her. The complainant has also generally and vaguely alleged that whenever her three sisters-in-law come home, they used to slap her asking her why she has not brought money. Though she has alleged that the 5th petitioner-Dolly who is working in Ambala Cantonment, used to come on holidays and gave beatings to her, she has not given the dates and other details. Similarly without naming anybody the complainant has stated that she was compelled to drink urine. Another vague allegation is that all of them, whenever they collected, used to beat her and her head was struck against the floor and the walls, but she has not given any other details as to the date or time etc. She has also alleged that her father-in-law (first-petitioner) used to come on holidays, hold her improperly and say that the appellant is mistress of himself and his son. Here again she has not given any date or time. 3. With regard to these allegations that she was beaten, she has not given any complaint to the police nor has she shown that she had taken any treatment from any Doctor. These allegations are general and vague without being specific. 4. The complainant has alleged that on 23.2.2000 her father-in-law and mother-in-law (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) gave her beatings making a demand for a colour television, fridge, scooter, washing machine or their value. These allegations are general and vague without being specific. 4. The complainant has alleged that on 23.2.2000 her father-in-law and mother-in-law (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) gave her beatings making a demand for a colour television, fridge, scooter, washing machine or their value. But, though she has stated that she has written a letter about this to her parents, on which her parents allegedly came on 5.3.2000 and gave Rs. 50,000/- to Ashish Sethi, the above said letter has not been produced. Even according to the appellant the money was paid to her husband only. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners they are living separately at Ambala and that the first-petitioner is working at Ludhiana. 5. The complainant has alleged that her father gave golden chain and bangles but the same were snatched by them. Here again, nobody is specified. 6. According to the appellant on 24.3.2000 her father-in-law and her sisters-in-law Meenakshi, Dolly beat her mercilessly while her husband Ashish sprinkled kerosene oil saying that he would finish her if she did not bring Rs. 1 lakh. In spite of these serious allegations, no complaint appears to have been lodged immediately. She has also alleged that on 25.6.2000 her mother-in-law, her husband and sisters-in-law Meenakshi and Dolly as also the husband of Dolly Rajesh (6th respondent) beat her and turned her out of the house. According to her she was thereafter taken by her husband and father-in-law to Doraha (Punjab) and there also she was given beatings. According to her on the objections of certain persons her husband and father-in-law brought her back to Ambala. She has also alleged that on 21.6.2000, all of her sisters-in-law and Rajesh (petitioner Nos. 3 to 6) beat and demanded Rs. one lakh. She has also stated that her articles, clothes, jewellery and Stridhan were taken from her. 7. The petitioners, as already stated contend that they are separate from Neeraj and her husband. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (father-in-law and mother-in-law) contend that they are living at Ambala and the first-petitioner is working at Ludhiana. According to the petitioners, 3rd petitioner Geeta was married in 1988 and has been living with her husband at Mohindergarh, whereas, 4th petitioner Meenakshi was married in 1994 and is living at Bilaspur (H.P.) while Dolly the fifth-petitioner was married in 1998 and is living at village Panjokhra Sahib. According to the petitioners, 3rd petitioner Geeta was married in 1988 and has been living with her husband at Mohindergarh, whereas, 4th petitioner Meenakshi was married in 1994 and is living at Bilaspur (H.P.) while Dolly the fifth-petitioner was married in 1998 and is living at village Panjokhra Sahib. The allegation in the FIR itself is that whenever these persons come they used to beat the complainant and, therefore, it is obvious that the petitioners are living separately. Further, the petitioners contend that the marriage between the complainant and her husband being a love marriage there was no occasion for giving any dowry at all, and that it is also not alleged in the F.I.R. that any dowry was given at the time of the marriage. They also contend that there was no need for the petitioners to demand any dowry inasmuch as they all are living separately. They also point out the allegation that (even according to the complainant), the articles, clothes, jewellery and Stridhan have been taken from her, and contend that this means that the petitioners were not entrusted with any of the alleged Stridhan articles. The petitioners also pointed out that it has not been specifically stated as to who took Stridhan articles from her. 8. Petitioners also contend that though the complainant has alleged that she was beaten several times, she had not made any complaint to the police about the same, and though she is alleged to have written letter about alleged demand for television, fridge, scooter and washing machine or money equivalent of the same and about alleged beating by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, the same letter is not produced. The petitioners also contend that though the appellant has alleged that on 21.6.2000, she was beaten by her three sisters-in-law and Rajesh (petitioner Nos. 3 to 6) demanding Rs. 1 lakh, that she was driven out of the house/ she had come to her parents and on the next day, she was medically examined at Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt., no medico/report has been produced into the Court. 9. Therefore, in these circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. Petition allowed. 9. Therefore, in these circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. Petition allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in this petition, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of arresting officer. If the association of the petitioners is required, the Investigating Officer shall issue notice to the petitioners giving them sufficient time to join investigation and on such notice the petitioners shall join investigation and abide by the provisions of Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.