JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.:- The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.87, dated 14.3.2013, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 IPC, registered at Police Station SGM Nagar, Faridabad, District Faridabad. 2. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail was dismissed. 3. Briefly stated marriage of complainant Sarika Narang was performed with Chetan Narang, co-accused, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Claridges Hotel, Surajkund Road, Faridabad, on 3.11.2011. Present petitioners -accused are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. There are allegations that complainant used to be tortured physically as well as mentally by petitioners and other family members on account of dowry. Complainant has given a detailed and natural version of the entire occurrence since the talks for finalising the marriage proposal started in December 2010. There are specific allegations that petitioneraccused Alka Narang had shown inclinations for this relation and Roka ceremony was fixed for 20.2.2011 and demand was raised by petitioneraccused Alka Narang on 16.1.2011 that Shagun in cash alongwith sweets should be given to each and every guest. She also raised demand that a gold chain and branded valuable gifts should also be given to Chetan on Roka ceremony. She instructed parents of complainant to prepare envelops of Rs.5,100/- each for their family members. All the gifts were handed over to petitioner-accused Alka Narang. All the articles given at the time of Roka ceremony and the amount spent has been given in Annexure A. On 6.3.2011, petitioner Alka Narang alongwith her daughter visited the house of complainant and instructed them that shopping for the marriage should be done from branded stores. The date of marriage was fixed for 3.11.2011 and demand was also made that honeymoon should be arranged abroad for which expenses should be borne by the father of the complainant. On 12.3.2011, petitioners-accused alongwith their son, i.e., husband of the complainant, and other family members visited the house of the complainant and raised demand that each and every guest accompanying the barat should be given shagun to the minimum amount of Rs.2100/- each. On 12.3.2011, petitioners-accused alongwith their son, i.e., husband of the complainant, and other family members visited the house of the complainant and raised demand that each and every guest accompanying the barat should be given shagun to the minimum amount of Rs.2100/- each. The demand was also raised that all the family members should be gifted gold ornaments and branded clothes. There was also demand that marriage should be performed in a 5-star hotel and, however, parents of complainant refused to give reception in a 5-Star hotel as they wanted to solemnize the marriage in the Delite Garden in Faridabad, which was already booked. 4. However, demand from the side of the petitioners and other family members for changing the venue of marriage persisted. On 30.10.2011 a shagun ceremony was arranged at Hotel Mapple, Gurgaon. Father of complainant also died and even after his death mother of complainant was forced to spend huge amount of Rs.7.00 lacs on shagun ceremony, list of which has been enclosed as Annexure B. 5. There are further allegations that though on 29.9.2011 father of complainant died as he was under constant pressure due to regular demands of dowry on the part of the petitioners and their other family members, however, on 10.10.2011, petitioners alongwith other family members visited the house of complainant and pressurized her mother to arrange marriage in a 5-Star hotel. Request of mother and the relatives of the complainant that due to death of father of complainant they should not insist for the same, but to no effect and the marriage had to be performed by mother of the complainant in a 5-Star hotel, i.e., Claridges Hotel in Faridabad and a sum of Rs.28,73,600/- was spent in the marriage, as per details given in Annexures C and D and valuable gifts were given in the marriage. 6. However, despite that complainant was subjected to humiliation which started from the first day of marriage on the plea that Toyota Fortuner car was not given in the marriage. Even all the jewellery was taken away by mother-in-law of the complainant. She was given physical beatings by the petitioners. She was also abused and her golden and diamond jewellery was snatched. She was also slapped by her husband. Demand was raised of Rs.50.00 lacs alongwith Toyota Fortuner car. Even all the jewellery was taken away by mother-in-law of the complainant. She was given physical beatings by the petitioners. She was also abused and her golden and diamond jewellery was snatched. She was also slapped by her husband. Demand was raised of Rs.50.00 lacs alongwith Toyota Fortuner car. She alongwith her husband had gone to Mauritius for honeymoon and when they returned, Rs.2.00 lacs were demanded by the petitioners as the same was spent on the honeymoon. She was given physical beatings by petitioners as well as by her husband and threat was raised that the marriage would be dissolved. On the demand of petitioners and their other family members sufficient amount was spent even on Lohri festival. Even domestic help was removed and complainant was forced to do all the house-hold work including sweeping and cleaning of the house. On 15.2.2012 abusive language was used even to mother of the complainant. Efforts were made by the complainant to sort out the things but to no effect. On 19.2.2012 husband of the complainant banged her head on the wall and slapped her and told her that she would not be accepted in the house unless demands are fulfilled and unless Toyota Fortuner car and Rs.50.00 lacs are given. In February 2012 husband of the complainant told her that he was going to attend a project in London and when she also started packing her luggage for going to London, her mother-in-law, i.e., petitioner-accused, came in the room and abused and told her that she could not leave for London unless demand of Rs.50.00 lacs and Toyota Fortuner car is met. Husband of complainant left London in the month of March 2012. However, other family members including present petitioners continued to beat her on minor matters and continued to torture her. On 21.4.2012 her mother-in-law tried to burn her by throwing boiling water on her. Ultimately, she also left for London and, however, all her jewellery etc. were taken away by her mother-in-law. Her husband used to talk to his mother and sister on daily basis. She was not allowed to go outside the house in London. She joined service in London and, however, due to mental and physical torture being given by her husband, she could not continue with her job. were taken away by her mother-in-law. Her husband used to talk to his mother and sister on daily basis. She was not allowed to go outside the house in London. She joined service in London and, however, due to mental and physical torture being given by her husband, she could not continue with her job. Her mother-in-law raised threat to her on telephone and instructed her to return India and in case she would not leave London she would be killed by her son and her mother would face dire consequences. She narrated the whole instance to her mother and under compelling circumstances returned to India on 15.10.2012 and since then she is residing with her mother. 7. At the time of preliminary hearing, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners on 23.4.2013 that son of petitioners was ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home and hence a date was requested for calling son of petitioners for reconciliation from abroad and for withdrawing the divorce petition already filed by the son of petitioners against the complainant. However, later on another affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners that their son was not ready to withdraw the divorce petition and he had also shown his inability to come to India due to his job compulsions and, hence, reconciliation could not be made. 8. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that even in divorce petition efforts were made for reconciliation and however, complainant did not appear and hence, settlement could not be arrived at. It is further contended that petitioners are ready to return some of the dowry articles in their possession. Hence it is contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioners-accused may not be necessary. He has also placed reliance upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, [2011(2) Law Herald (SC) 1333] : (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 694, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain factors and parameters to be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail. The relevant paragraph of the same reads as under:- “112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:- i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The relevant paragraph of the same reads as under:- “112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:- i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 9. He has also placed reliance upon a Single Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Chander Bhan and another v. State 151 (2008) Delhi Law Times 691, wherein it was observed that efforts should be made to save the institution of marriage and matrimonial homes of the couples. He has also placed reliance upon a Single Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Chander Bhan and another v. State 151 (2008) Delhi Law Times 691, wherein it was observed that efforts should be made to save the institution of marriage and matrimonial homes of the couples. However, in this case there are very serious allegations against the petitioners-accused. Complainant has given very detailed and natural versi 10. However, in the case there are very serious allegations against the petitioners-accused. Complainant has given very detailed and natural version of the entire occurrence since the talks for settlement of the marriage started between the parties. There was demand of dowry on the part of the petitioners since the very beginning. Specific instances of demand have been given. There was demand on the part of the petitioners to arrange the marriage in a 5-Star hotel. Father of complainant could not agree for the said demand as he had already booked some other venue for the party. There are allegations that he was under acute pressure due to demands of petitioners and their family members and hence, he expired even before solemnizing the marriage of the complainant with son of present petitioners. Even after death of father of complainant the demand of solemnizing the marriage in a 5-Star hotel continued. Mother of complainant agreed for the said demand and even arranged marriage in a 5- Star hotel. However, even then they were not satisfied. Several acts of physical and mental cruelty committed upon her. Demand of Toyota Fortuner and Rs.50.00 lacs were raised and ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial home on 13.10.2012 and since then she is residing with her mother. Cruelty is to the extent that divorce petition has been filed by son of petitioners while sitting in United Kingdom. Hence, when son of petitioners is not ready to come to India, there cannot by any talk for settlement in his absence. When it was offered before this Court by counsel for the petitioners at the time of arguments on 23.4.2013 that petitioners are ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home, time was taken for calling son of the petitioners for reconciliation and for withdrawing the divorce petition already filed by him against the complainant. However, son of petitioners is not ready to withdraw the divorce petition. However, son of petitioners is not ready to withdraw the divorce petition. Hence, it cannot be said that there are chances of marriage being saved when son of petitioners is not ready to withdraw the divorce petition. Son of petitioners is also not ready to come to India for the purpose of mediation proceedings. 11. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitionersaccused. 12. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Ramesh Narang and Alka Narang for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. --------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————