JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition and the application for anticipatory bail have been moved in relation to F.I.R. no. 114/2013 registered at the Police Station Mahila Thana (West), Jodhpur. 2. The petitioner no. 1 Chandra Prakash is the complainant's husband whereas the petitioner no. 2 Khemraj is her father in law. The complainant Smt. Kiran was married to the petitioner Chandra Prakash on 11.5.2005. A son was born from the wedlock in November, 2006. It appears that owing to some financial squabbles, the relations between father and son fell into discord. The husband started his own pursuits in share business. The father in law - the petitioner no. 2 tried to involve the complainant in his business in the year 2008. The things carried on in this manner for about 1½ years. The husband went to Jaipur in order to start his own separate business. The complainant accompanied her husband to Jaipur. For some time, the relationship between the husband and wife continued smoothly. Ultimately disputes arose between the complainant and her husband and the differences reached to such an extent that the complainant left her husband's house and came to Jodhpur with her son and started living at her father's house in the year 2011. 3. The petitioner No.2 husband purportedly came to Jodhpur and attempted to take his son away from the complainant's custody. An F.I.R. No. 179/2013 was filed on 24.7.2013 at P.S. Sardarpura, Jodhpur by Om Prakash the father of the complainant herein against the petitioner Chandra Prakash, Shakuntala and others for alleged trespass and assault. In the said F.I.R. there was no allegation that the complainant (who was living with her father for the last nearly 1½ years) had been ever subjected to harassment on account of bringing less dowry or was ever subjected to any kind of sexual abuse by any member of her in laws. An F.I.R. No.178/2013 was filed by Chandra Prakash the petitioner against his in-laws wherein the police has filed a charge sheet against Om Prakash, father of the complainant u/ss. 323 and 341 I.P.C. The complainant was examined during the course of investigation of F.I.R. No. 179/2013 filed by her father. In the said statement she did not level any allegation of any cruelty having been meted out to her on account of demand of dowry. 323 and 341 I.P.C. The complainant was examined during the course of investigation of F.I.R. No. 179/2013 filed by her father. In the said statement she did not level any allegation of any cruelty having been meted out to her on account of demand of dowry. She also did not make a whisper of sexual harassment in the said statement. 4. The F.I.R. in question i.e. F.I.R. No. 114/2013 was lodged by the complainant Smt.Kiran at the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur(West) on 1.8.2013 in form of a typed complaint running into eight pages. She alleged that all was fine in the matrimonial house for two years. In the year 2007, the complainant's husband Chandra Prakash and the father in law Khem Raj quarrelled over business disputes. Her husband started new business of shares and pressed her to bring money from her father. On this, she brought a sum of Rs. 5 lacs from her father and gave it to her husband. He promised that he would return the money back with interest but did not stand by his words. Her father in law involved her in his business in the year 2008. She felt that the motives of father in law were bonafide but as a matter of fact the intention of the accused was evil and he want to take undue advantage and nothing else. Her father in law used to take her to the Boranada factory. She was taken to Surat for learning embroidery business. In the day time, she used to learn embroidery and in the night time she used to stay in a hotel. On waking up in the morning, she felt that she was not in her senses. She could not recollect as to what happened in the night time. She requested her father in law that she wanted to go back to Jodhpur but he insisted for her to stay at Surat. She was prevented from calling her husband on phone as well. He father in law showed her some letters bearing handwriting similar to her. She was told that she had written love letters to her father in law mentioning that she could not live without him. She was shocked on seeing the letters. Her father in law told her that she had written the letters in the night time. He father in law showed her some letters bearing handwriting similar to her. She was told that she had written love letters to her father in law mentioning that she could not live without him. She was shocked on seeing the letters. Her father in law told her that she had written the letters in the night time. He threatened that the letters would be made public and thereby her maternal family would be disgraced. The marriages of her brother sister would become impossible. She was terrified by the threats. Accordingly she started according to the demands of her father in law without any resistance or complaint. She was not permitted to go out with her husband and could only move around as per the whims of her father in law. Once, her father in law suggested that she should accompany him to Calcutta. She refused saying that her husband would not agree. On this, she and her husband were turned out of the matrimonial house. She was threatened that the incriminating documents (love letters) would be circulated on which she was forced to return back. She was forcibly taken to Calcutta. There also her modesty was outraged. Her father in law was the head of family and misusing his position, he used to touch her body with evil motives. Whenever she was alone, he would hug her. She feared that if these happening were revealed to anybody, the whole family would be disgraced in the society because her husband was the only son in the family. She alleged that as long as she stayed with her father in law, he used to molest her on every available opportunity. Since her husband and father in law did not see face to face, he left Jodhpur and went to Jaipur. She followed her husband and went to the bus stand. Her father in law pursued her and forcibly tried to get her into his car. Some people from the police out post saw the incident and saved her. Her brother in law Ashish reached there. She went to Jaipur with him. She stopped talking to her father in law after going to Jaipur. Her father in law revealed all the incidents to her husband and instigated him that her wife had tried to implicate him with false allegations. Her brother in law Ashish reached there. She went to Jaipur with him. She stopped talking to her father in law after going to Jaipur. Her father in law revealed all the incidents to her husband and instigated him that her wife had tried to implicate him with false allegations. She apprehended that her husband would also not cooperate with her on which she tried to end her life. Her husband realised that she was innocent. Thereafter, they lived happily at Jaipur for two years. After a while, her husband developed illicit relations with a girl named Priya who was married from before and was having a child. Despite her best efforts, he did not relent from the extra merital relations. Whenever she tried to placate her husband, she was assaulted. Her son became afraid of his father's behaviour. On this, she left the house and went to the womens hostel with her son and stayed there for 6 to 7 months. The quality of the food served in the hostel was substandard and thus, she went back to her husband's home. On this her husband left the home and started staying in another premises. She was told that he was leaving the house not because of his affairs with the girl but because of her wrong conduct with his father. She pleaded with him that if there was an iota of truth in the allegations, then she should be divorced first. The husband refused to support her and the child. Her Mangalsutra was sold off. She lost her job. Her son used to cry in the memory of his father but the accused did not relent to his pleas. She had seen her husband roaming around with woman named Priya on numerous occasions. On one particular day, her father in law came to Jaipur with his wife (mother in law) and told that she should come to Jodhpur. She was told that if she did not agree, her husband and child would be taken away. On this she locked her house and came down to Jodhpur with her son and started living with her father. All her dowry articles were with the in-laws. After she returned back, her husband used to call her frequently and requested to talk to the child. She replied that child needed much more than empty talks. On this she locked her house and came down to Jodhpur with her son and started living with her father. All her dowry articles were with the in-laws. After she returned back, her husband used to call her frequently and requested to talk to the child. She replied that child needed much more than empty talks. Some days before the report was filed, her husband came to her father's house and indulged in physical violence. He instead that he wanted to have the child. The first informant told that he should leave the company of the girl but he did not agree. She further alleged that her Stridhan articles were with her father in law but he refused to return the same to her. The amount of Rs. 5 lacs which she had given to her husband was also not returned. She further alleged that her father in law was a cheater and was habitual of committing forgery. She was administered some intoxicant in water and when she lost senses, her modesty was outraged. In this condition she was made to sign numerous stamps and blank papers. She made a complaint about the conduct of her father in law to mother in law, sister in law and other family members but all of them sided with the father in law. She was threatened to keep quiet. After she went to Jaipur, her father gave her some money for buying a vehicle but her husband cheated and purchased the vehicle in his own name. She alleged that she was physically and mentally tortured continuously since two years of marriage by her husband, father in law, mother in law, sister in law, uncle in law. Her father in law used to take her out under the pretext of some business jobs and used to molest her after administering some intoxicant mixed in water. 5. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. was registered at the Women Police Station, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 354 I.P.C. 6. The complainant was examined in connection with the said F.I.R. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein also the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. were repeated. It is relevant to state here that in the detailed typed report and the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., the allegation of physical harassment was limited to the extent of molestation only. The complainant was examined in connection with the said F.I.R. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein also the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. were repeated. It is relevant to state here that in the detailed typed report and the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., the allegation of physical harassment was limited to the extent of molestation only. The things took a different turn on 12.8.2013 when the complainant was examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she levelled an additional allegation that the father in law used to maintain relations as husband and wife with her and also subjected her to forcible rape. It is relevant to mention here that in the said statement there is no allegation against any of the accused regarding any harassment having been meted out to the complainant on account of demand of dowry. The accused Chandra Prakash and Khemraj being the husband and father in law of the complainant respectively have approached this Court assailing the F.I.R. by way of Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2004/2013 and seeking anticipatory bail being S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6734/2013. 7. Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the case as set up by the complainant is totally false, concocted and malafide. As a matter of fact, the whole dispute arose owing to the rival claims for custody of the child and owing to a dispute over a plot of land purchased by the father in law in the complainants name. Chandra Prakash was desperate to take custody of the child. The petitioner Khemraj had purchased a plot in the name of the complainant. The complainant connived with the seller and got filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and by filing a collusive reply the sale deed was got cancelled. He further submits that the alleged incident of rape is said to have taken place some where in the year 2008 and 2009. A few days before the F.I.R. in question was filed, the complainant's father filed an F.I.R. No. 179/2013 against Chandra Prakash and Shakuntala. The complainant was examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. in relation to the said report and in the said statement she did not level any allegation regarding the commission of offences u/ss. 498A, 406, 354 or 376 I.P.C. against any of the accused. The complainant was examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. in relation to the said report and in the said statement she did not level any allegation regarding the commission of offences u/ss. 498A, 406, 354 or 376 I.P.C. against any of the accused. He further submits that even in the detailed typed report filed by the complainant, she did not allege that she was ever subjected to rape. The offence under section 354 IPC was bailable when the incident allegedly occurred as the alleged molestation of the complainant took place in the year 2008-2009. The complainant was living at her father's house for the last two years and there was no reason for her to have kept quiet without reporting the matter if any such incident had actually taken place. None of the alleged love letters claimed to have been shown by the accused Khem Raj to the complainant really exist and the allegation levelled in this regard is purely fictional. Therefore, he prays that the petitioners deserve to be granted anticipatory bail and the F.I.R. impugned deserves to be quashed. 8. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the complainant vehemently urged that the complainant was threatened that the letters allegedly written by her would be made public and thereby the marriage of her sisters would become difficult. Fearing retribution and disgrace to her father's family, she kept silent for this long period of time before filing the report. He further contends that the complainant was examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. during the course of the investigation. In the said statement, she has levelled a serious allegation of rape against her father in law and thus the petitioners do not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail nor is it fit case to quash the F.I.R. He further contends that the Stridhan articles of the complainant are yet to be recovered. Thus, as per him the accused are not entitled to any relief in this matter. 9. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned F.I.R. as well as the case diary. The fact regarding the complainant living at her father's house for the last about two years is not disputed. Thus, as per him the accused are not entitled to any relief in this matter. 9. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned F.I.R. as well as the case diary. The fact regarding the complainant living at her father's house for the last about two years is not disputed. There was no restraint on the complainant from reporting the matter to the police all during this period. Even if the complaint filed by the complainant running into eight pages is perused, it is evident that the troubles originated due to financial differences between the father and son i.e. the petitioners herein. It appears that the husband failed in business on which father in law tried to involve the complainant in the business and make her self sufficient. It is claimed by the petitioner Khemraj that when the relations were smooth, he even purchased a piece of land from his sources in the complainant's name in the year 2008. After the relations fell out, a suit was filed by one Pallavi Mehta against the complainant for cancellation of the sale deed. The complainant gave a collusive reply and accordingly the suit was decreed and the sale deed was cancelled. During the period preceding the filing of the FIR, the husband Chandra Prakash tried to take away the child from the complainants custody. It appears that the complainant became apprehensive that her husband would start making serious efforts to take the childs custody and only thereafter the F.I.R. came to be filed. Otherwise, there was no reason for the complainant not to file the F.I.R. earlier because she was already separated from her husband and in laws for the last about two years and was living at her fathers house. It is also surprising that though the complainant was allegedly subjected to sexual harassment between the years 2008- 2009, she never made any complaint in this regard to her parents or other maternal relatives. The over tones of a dispute regarding the custody of child are writ large on the face of record. The complainant was examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. in relation to the F.I.R. No. 179/2013 filed by her father and in the said statement she clearly alleged that her husband threatened that he would take the child away. The over tones of a dispute regarding the custody of child are writ large on the face of record. The complainant was examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. in relation to the F.I.R. No. 179/2013 filed by her father and in the said statement she clearly alleged that her husband threatened that he would take the child away. The omission to mention about the serious offence of alleged rape against the petitioner Khemraj in the typed F.I.R. running into eight pages is of great significance. There was no rhyme or reason for the complainant not to have levelled this allegation while filing the F.I.R. Be that as it may. It appears that Khemraj is the person holding the financial reins in the accused's family and that is why he has been made the prime target in the case. The gradual improvement made by the complainant in increasing the gravity of allegations at four available opportunities (firstly, during the investigation of F.I.R.No.179/2013, secondly, while drafting the F.I.R.No.114/2013 of the present case, thirdly, while being examined u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and fourthly, while being examined under section 164 Cr.P.C.) cannot simply be overlooked and ignored. Any comments on the veracity of case is likely to prejudice further proceedings. The defence which has been taken by the accused cannot be brushed aside lightly. It is significant to note that the story of dowry harassment as set out by the complainant is very feeble. However, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the exercise of inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.c. for quashing the F.I.R. at the initial stage, this Court is of the opinion that as the matter involves analysis and evaluation of disputed questions of fact, it would neither be prudent nor expedient in the interest of justice to quash the F.I.R. at this stage. The petitioners are given liberty to file a representation before the Investigation Officer who shall consider such representation before filing the result of the investigation in the concerned court. However, this Court is of the opinion that there is no justification or reason for allowing the arrest of the petitioners in this case. 10. The petitioners are given liberty to file a representation before the Investigation Officer who shall consider such representation before filing the result of the investigation in the concerned court. However, this Court is of the opinion that there is no justification or reason for allowing the arrest of the petitioners in this case. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Chandra Prakash and Khemraj in connection with F.I.R. No.114/2013, Police Station Mahila Thana (West), Jodhpur, the petitioners shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i). that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and (iii). that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. The misc. petition is disposed of with the above observations.Petition disposed of. *******