Daily Archives: June 23, 2015

498a ablaa got re married and is living with NEW husband ! old Chapie runs for quash ! Jarkhand HC

Men and women want to move ON in life … It would be nice IF they move on WITHOUT trampling others ! However some don’t care because there is NO punishment for such FALSE 498a cases. so, some just file a 498a case, do NOT follow and move on ..i.e. get married. The sad part is the the men who are victims of SUCH 498a are unable to move on !!, and here is one such case

The court notices the IMPORTANT POINT ….. and that is ….
“….The important aspect which I would like to consider in the present case is that the complainant got herself married within two years from the date of filing of the complaint case and since then she has been living peacefully with her new husband. It is not reported that after she got herself re-married any untoward at the hands of any of the petitioner has ever taken place. It is also required to be considered that all the petitioners are living separately since prior to the date of occurrence and the complainant has not specifically averted that any of them were present on the date of incident and they committed any overt act……”

And the Hon court goes on to order : “… Considering all these aspect and the judgment cited above, I feel inclined to allow this Cr.M.P. and accordingly order dated 18.04.2000 passed by Smt. Reeta Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 386/1995 stands set aside and the prosecution arising out of complaint case against these petitioners stands quashed….”

************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P.No. 70 of 2002

1. Shashi Kumar Verma.
2. Raj Kumar Prasad.
3. Raj Kumar Srivastava.
4. Sanjay Kumar Sinha.
5. Smt. Sanju Verma.
6. Smt. Kiran Sinha.
7. Smt. Muni Srivastava.          … …   … …Petitioners

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Smt. Sandhya Rani.               … … …       …Opp.Parties
**************************
CORAM: THE HONE’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY

For the Petitioners:        Mr. P.S.Dayay, Advocate.
For the State:             A.P.P.
**************************
07/ 17.06.2015

This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.04.2000 passed by Smt. Reeta Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 386/1995 whereby the petitioners have been directed to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they were directed to be summoned.

2. The facts in brief is that the complainant namely, Smt. Sandhya Rani was married with Ashok Kumar Verma on 15.02.1989 according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage she had started living with her husband and in-laws at Patna. The husband of the complainant died on 06.09.1994 and after that the complainant came back to Dhanbad to her parents house. The complainant again went back to her matrimonial home but she was not welcomed and subjected to torture and assault by her father-in-law and relatives of her husband. She came back to Dhanbad and lodged a complaint vide C.P. Case No. 386/1995. Enquiry was conducted and the learned Magistrate after considering the statement of complainant recorded on S.A. and the statement of witnesses examined during enquiry passed the impugned order directing the petitioners and other accused to face trial. It is necessary to mention that initially the learned C.J.M. did not take cognizance and dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter the complainant preferred Cr.Misc. Petition No. 534/1996(R) before the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Ranchi Bench). The order dated 30.08.1995 passed by the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the court- below and after that the learned Magistrate, Smt. Reeta Mishra passed the order impugned.

3. It is submitted that place of occurrence was at Patna is not in dispute but the complaint has been filed at Dhanbad. Learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that after filing of the complaint, the complainant got herself married with Nitya Nand Prasad Lala on 4.6.1997 and from that date her second conjugal life commenced.

4. It is submitted that this Court has considered Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. and held that offence though committed at Patna but consequences ensued at Dhanbad because the complainant was suffering with mental agony. In this context, judgment reported in 2008 (XI) S.C.C. 103 “Bhura Ram & Ors. Vrs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.” has been referred. It is argued that offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not continuing offence and, therefore, the place of occurrence will be the place for criminal prosecution.

5. Learned Counsel has further submitted that complaint was filed against 13 accused but cognizance has been taken only against original accused no. 1 to 10 and out of those accused, father-in-law accused no.1 and two other accused i.e. accused no.2 and accused no.5 are now no more in this world. The petitioners before this court are two married sister-in-law and their husband one Gotni and her husband and son of sister-in-law. These petitioners have nothing to do with the domestic affairs prevailing in the house of the husband of the complainant because they had been living separately in mess and kitchen with their family members. Furthermore, vague statement regarding occurrence has been given in the complaint. She has stated that she was subjected to torture and assault while she had been to her matrimonial home. It is not specifically indicated whether these petitioners were present in the house at that point of time or not. No specific overt act committed by any of the petitioner has been disclosed by the complainant in her S.A. At this juncture, learned Counsel has referred the judgment reported in 2013(1) J.L.J.R. S.C. 115 “Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vrs. State of U.P. & Anr.” and submitted that the complainant had started living peacefully with her new husband since the year 1997 and that clearly indicates that now she is not suffering under any mental agony due to the torture, if any, committed on her by her in-laws after the death of her husband.

6. In the circumstances stated above, the order impugned is liable to be quashed.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party has submitted that point of jurisdiction has already been decided by this Court in Cr.M.P.No.534/1996(R) and therefore question of jurisdiction cannot be discussed again in this Cr.M.P. The complainant has knocked the door of the Court for seeking justice for the occurrence which had taken place on 6.9.1994 and onwards. She was subjected to torture and assault by her father-in-law and relatives of her husband and that too after the death of her husband. If the offence was committed, wrong doer are liable to be punished. There is no merit in this Cr.M.P. and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have gone through the documents and record placed before me. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held for the offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C., the Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed will have the jurisdiction to try the offence and the offence u/s 498A I.P.C. is not a continuing offence.

In the present case, the complainant admits that occurrence had taken place at Patna.

The important aspect which I would like to consider in the present case is that the complainant got herself married within two years from the date of filing of the complaint case and since then she has been living peacefully with her new husband. It is not reported that after she got herself re-married any untoward at the hands of any of the petitioner has ever taken place. It is also required to be considered that all the petitioners are living separately since prior to the date of occurrence and the complainant has not specifically averted that any of them were present on the date of incident and they committed any overt act.

9. Considering all these aspect and the judgment cited above, I feel inclined to allow this Cr.M.P. and accordingly order dated 18.04.2000 passed by Smt. Reeta Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 386/1995 stands set aside and the prosecution arising out of complaint case against these petitioners stands quashed.

[D.N.Upadhyay,J.]

P.K.S.

Avoid arrest, Do mediation in 498a etc says Govt. However police add Sec 307 IPC & get Arrest warrant. Husband co run around courts !!


Abla claims assaults, attempt 2 murder etc while CCTV footage normal woman leaving home. Investigating agency adds Sec 307 IPC to the complaint and obtains Arrest warrant !! Still NO quash by P&H HC!

The husband’s side argues that the woman walked out of their apartment without any injury marks and as a normal woman and there is CCTV footage confirming the same …

“….24. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has also filed CCTV footage dated 02.09.2013 of lobby of the house of petitioners, showing the complainant leaving the house (alongwith probably her daughter) in the early morning on 02.09.2013, which would rule out indication of any serious injury. It is further contended that while going to board a flight the complainant also got her medical examination in Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai. Learned counsel placed on record medical report showing history of fall in the bathroom resulting in pain over left shoulder including neck and pain over left wrist including arm. This record, however, shows that X-ray of 3 injuries was advised. …..”

However the abla naari wife says

“….11. Further details of the incident dated 02.09.2013 as contained in this representation are that when the complainant confronted her husband in front of other family members with the clippings/photographs evidencing relationship of petitioner No. 1 with that lady, petitioner No. 1 slapped her. She was also physically assaulted by other petitioners and she fell on the ground. The mother-in-law brought a matchstick and told her husband to set ablaze the complainant…..”

The Government has issued necessary instructions to avoid arrest and do counselling in case of matrimonial disputes, 498a cases etc, however the investigation agency seems to have obtained arrest warrants! The relevant portions are quoted below

However the investigating agency has added Section 307 (attempt to murder) to the case and obtained arrest warrants !!

“…(c) In cases of matrimonial disputes, the first recourse should be to affect conciliation and mediation between the warring spouses and their families and recourse to filing charges U/s 498A IPC may be resorted to in cases where such conciliation fails and where there appears a prima facie case under Section 498A and other laws. The Counselling mechanisms envisaged under PWDV Act, 2005 should be instituted by State Government and any counselling of parties should be done only by professionally qualified counsellors and not by the police. The police may consider empanelling professional counsellors with the CAW Cell….”

The advocate for the husband tries to covert this as a bail please but the court is NOT willing to do so


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-32262 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 05.10.2013

Parneet Singh Swani and others ……..Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another …… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

Present:

Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Chopra and Ms. Namrata Jayakar, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Mikhail Kad, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1.

Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

R.P. NAGRATH, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 115 dated 06.09.2013 (Annexure P-1) for offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 324, 506, 307 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar Mohali. Prayer is made for restraining respondent No. 1- State from taking/adopting any coercive measures including arrest of the petitioners in pursuance to the registration of FIR.

2. Reply to the petition has been filed by respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”). Learned counsel for the parties and the State counsel have been heard.

3. I am of the view that instant FIR was registered on 06.09.2013 and seeking to quash the FIR at the threshold may be permissible only on the ground of inherent lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Police of district Mohali to investigate the case.

4. Even such a challenge would be a remote possibility when there are seriously disputed facts. Otherwise the principle of law on the subject is quite well settled, as reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 28-DBA of 1991, State of Punjab vs. Pritam Chand and others, decided on 25.01.2013 wherein it was held as thus:-

“(i) xx xx xx xx xx

(ii) A complaint on the basis of which FIR has been registered or a
criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., cannot be quashed at
the threshold by the High Court in exercise of its inherent or
constitutional jurisdiction nor are the complainant or the
investigating agency, as the case may be, expected to produce the
relevant material at the initial stage for consideration of a court
of competent jurisdiction for the formation of its opinion whether or
not a prima-facie case as per the ingredients descripted in different
provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other Penal Law, is made
out.

5. In State of Karnataka and another Vs. Pastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728, Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that no report under Section 173 Cr.PC. had been submitted by the Incharge of the Police Station concerned to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by the High Court to interfere with the statutory power of the Police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence. The legal position that the Court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the lodging of the of the FIR till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of Police Station in court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. this field being exclusively reserved for the investigating agency.

6. It was similarly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savita Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2005 (13) SCC 338 held that quashing of FIR for offences under Section 498-A and 406 IPC where investigation had not yet started is too premature a stage for the High Court to give a finding and the investigating agency had no occasion to find out whether there was material to file a charge-sheet or not.

7. The version stated in the FIR briefly is that marriage of petitioner No. 1 and the complainant was solemnized on 18.10.2003 and a female child was born from the wedlock on 29.10.2004. After the girl child was born, in-laws of complainant started troubling her on the ground that sufficient dowry was not given. The complainant has stated about payment of different amounts on various occasions to petitioner No. 1 and family members. It is also stated that because of the constant harassment she came back to her parents alongwith the child in 2009 and stayed here till 2010. She was taken back to Mumbai only after paying more cash amount and getting assurances to treat her nicely.

8. The recent incident which led to the filing of FIR took place on 02.09.2013 in the early morning at residential house of petitioners in Mumbai. It is stated that all the petitioners gave beating to complainant and demanded an amount of ` 2 crores as they have to start a new factory for petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 picked up a knife and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, tried to strangulate her. It is also stated that petitioner No. 2 caught hold of complainant from her legs and petitioner No. 1 tried to stab her in the head but she saved this attack by raising her arm causing cut on her biceps. She agreed to bring money and was thus spared. She narrated the incident to her father on phone who told her to immediately come to Mohali. She took a flight and reached Mohali at 4.30 p.m. and was admitted in the hospital on the same evening where she was medically examined. As per medicolegal examination 6 injures were found on the person of complainant.

9. On this statement of complainant recorded on 03.09.2013, FIR was registered on 06.09.2013 for offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 324, 506 and 120-B IPC read with Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Learned State counsel submitted that offences under Section 307 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were added on 09.09.2013 on the basis of supplementary statement made by the complainant. The complainant has also attached supplementary representation (Annexure R-2/5) made to the Police on 10.09.2013.

10. In the supplementary representation, additional grievance of complainant is that in the year 2009 the complainant came to know about illicit relation of petitioner No. 1 with the wife of his best friend. Petitioner No. 1 started avoiding complainant and used to stay out with that lady on one pretext or the other. It was also found that petitioner No. 1 had been travelling with said lady friend to Rajasthan and other places on the pretext of attending his office in Rajasthan. The complainant disclosed this fact to her parents and also complained to her in-laws. It is now stated that petitioner No. 1 threatened to eliminate her and she came to her parents at Mohali on 11.01.2009. The complainant stayed with her parents for 10 months. In October, 2009 a panchayat was convened wherein petitioner No. 1 assured to discontinue illicit affair with that lady.

11. Further details of the incident dated 02.09.2013 as contained in this representation are that when the complainant confronted her husband in front of other family members with the clippings/photographs evidencing relationship of petitioner No. 1 with that lady, petitioner No. 1 slapped her. She was also physically assaulted by other petitioners and she fell on the ground. The mother-in-law brought a matchstick and told her husband to set ablaze the complainant.

12. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate vehemently contended that the version put forth by complainant is highly improbable. The learned counsel submits that there cannot be substance in the story of demand of dowry as admittedly petitioners have flourishing business which fact is admitted in paragraph No. 14 of representation dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure R-2/5). The marital discord between husband and wife has been blown out of proportion just to humiliate the entire family. It is further contended that the incidents reported in the FIR allegedly took place in Mumbai and therefore, the investigation of FIR could not be carried on by the Police in Mohali, Punjab.

13. From the facts of this case it would be difficult to accept the above contention as from contents of the FIR, a part of cause of action at least arises in District Mohali, Punjab. It is admitted case as stated in paragraph No. 3 of the petition that marriage of the complainant and petitioner No. 1 was solemnized at Mohali on 18.10.2003. So with regard to allegations of entrustment of the dowry articles would seemingly arise in district Mohali. This is otherwise basically a question which has to be determined after investigation is over. The case law on the subject has been referred by both the parties.

14. Learned Senior Advocate for the complainant referred to Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2011 (Supreme Court) 1674. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:-

“11. We have already adverted to the details made by the
Appellant in the complaint. In view of the specific assertion by the
Appellant-wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of
the husband and his relatives at Ranchi and of the fact that because
of their action, she was taken to her parental home at Gaya by her
husband with a threat of dire consequences for not fulfilling their
demand of dowry, we hold that in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the
Code, the offence in this case was a continuing one having been
committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Gaya,
the learned Magistrate at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the
criminal case instituted therein. In other words, the offence was a
continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of
continuing offence of harassment of ill-treatment meted out to the
complainant, Clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. Further, from
the allegations in the complaint, it appears to us that it is a
continuing offence of ill-treatment and humiliation meted out to the
Appellant in the hands of all the accused persons and in such
continuing offence, on some occasion all had taken part and on other
occasion one of the accused, namely, husband had taken part,
therefore, undoubtedly Clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code is
clearly attracted.”

15. The facts of Sunita Kumari Kashyap’s case (supra) were that on 17.10.2007, Sunita Kumari Kashyap-the Appellant made a complaint to the Inspector In-charge, Magadh Medical College Police Station, Gaya. In the complaint, the Appellant, after narrating her marriage with Sanjay Kumar Saini-Respondent on 16.04.2000 stated that what had happened immediately after marriage at the instance of her husband and his family members’ ill-treatment, torture and finally complained that she was taken out of the matrimonial home at Ranchi and sent to her parental home at Gaya with the threat that unless she gets her father’s house in the name of her husband, she has to stay at her parental house forever. In the said complaint, she also asserted that her husband pressurized her to get her father’s house in his name and when she denied she was beaten by her husband. It was also asserted that after keeping her entire jewellery and articles, on 24.12.2006, her husband brought her at Gaya and left her there warning that till his demands are met, she has to stay at Gaya and if she tries to come back without meeting those demands she will be killed. It was also stated that from that date till the date of complaint, her in-laws never enquired about her. Even then she called them but they never talked to her. It was then found that there was ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of her husband and his family members at the matrimonial home at Ranchi and because of their actions and threat she was forcibly taken to her parental home at Gaya where she initiated the criminal proceedings against them for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

16. The judgments on the subject referred on behalf of petitioners are Bhura Ram and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2008) 11 SCC 103 and Y. Abraham Ajith and others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and others, (2004) 8 SCC 100. Both these cases are not helpful as the petitions for quashing for want of territorial jurisdiction were filed after charge- sheet was presented by the Police and not at the threshold.

17. In Bhura Ram’s case (supra) the facts were that the marriage was solemnized in Village Ramsara, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur and right from the marriage, the complainant and her husband were residing in Punjab. Thereafter, the complainant started residing in Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan with her maternal relations. The facts of that case, therefore, disclosed that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar and in those circumstances it was held that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan.

18. In Y. Abraham Ajith’s case (supra) the complaint itself disclosed that after 15.4.1997, the respondent left Nagercoil and came to Chennai and was staying there. All the allegations which were per se without any basis took place according to the complainant at Nagercoil, and therefore, the Courts at Chennai did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It was further submitted that earlier a complaint was lodged by the complainant before the concerned police officials having jurisdiction; but after inquiry no action was deemed necessary. It was found that there was not even a whisper of allegation of any demand of dowry or commission of act constituting an offence much less at Chennai. It was held that being so, the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offences cannot be applied. Therefore, in present case all these facts would be considered when investigation is complete and charge-sheet is prepared.

19. It is also a matter of record that investigating agency obtained arrest warrants of petitioners from Judicial Magistrate Kharar District Mohali. The petitioners were arrested by the Police and produced before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai at about 1.25 p.m. on 12.09.2013. In the meanwhile, the petitioners applied for transit bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. before Bombay High Court. In their application (Annexure R-2/2) and as observed by Bombay High Court in the order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P-5/R-2/3) that the petitioners represented that the marriage was solemnized in Mumbai in October, 2003. The Bombay High Court, thus, observed that the allegations leveled against the petitioners would constitute offences which must have taken place in Mumbai and therefore, the Police Station at Balongi may have jurisdiction to register the offence but not to investigate the same, since the offences have allegedly taken place at Mumbai. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate appearing for the petitioners urged that the marriage was in fact registered in the year 2005 at Mumbai for which learned counsel filed additional document. But the fact remains that it was represented to the Bombay High Court that marriage was solemnized in Mumbai whereas it is admitted fact now, that the marriage was performed at Mohali.

20. However, in the application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed before the Sessions Court at Mohali, it was stated by petitioners that marriage was solemnized in Chandigarh on 18.10.2003 though that application was dismissed on 23.09.2013 vide order (Annexure P-6) holding that it was not maintainable as only the petition for regular bail under Section 437 or 439 Cr.P.C. could lie. Copy of application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record by learned Senior Advocate for the complainant. However, in the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed lateron, it was admitted that the marriage was performed in Mohali on 18.10.2003.

21. Mr. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners referred to Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, wherein it was held as under:-

“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and
Ors.(2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this
Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint
arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had
been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set
aside.

Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to
enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully.
But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume
serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of
the family are also involved with the result that those who could
have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless
on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are
many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement
instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young”
days in chasing their cases in different courts.

The view taken by the judges in that matter was that the courts should not encourage such disputes.

22. That was a case where FIR was registered under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Mahila Thana Daraganj, Allahabad. It was alleged in the said FIR that marriage was solemnized at a place in Faridabad and the parties stayed together in Chennai and other places and under these circumstances it was held that the Courts at Allahabad did not have the territorial jurisdiction. In the present case it is admitted that the marriage was solemnized at Mohali though it was projected in different manner before the Bombay High Court.

23. The other argument put forth by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners pertains to offence under Section 307 IPC and placed on record the photostat copy of medicolegal report (MLR) which was conducted on 02.09.2013. Learned counsel submits that from bare perusal with naked eye, injury No. 6 which has been pressed upon to attract Section 307 IPC is with different handwriting and ink. It is further suggested that since the signatures of the doctor were already appearing on the MLR that the sentence for this injury could not be completed despite there being a vast space beyond the word ‘temporal’ but the last word ‘area’ has been written in the second line of this injury. If it is really so, that would be a very serious matter but no observation or finding should be given at this stage especially when it was contended by Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate that the petitioners have since been called to appear before the investigating agency on 04.10.2013 for listening to their version.

24. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has also filed CCTV footage dated 02.09.2013 of lobby of the house of petitioners, showing the complainant leaving the house (alongwith probably her daughter) in the early morning on 02.09.2013, which would rule out indication of any serious injury. It is further contended that while going to board a flight the complainant also got her medical examination in Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai. Learned counsel placed on record medical report showing history of fall in the bathroom resulting in pain over left shoulder including neck and pain over left wrist including arm. This record, however, shows that X-ray of 3 injuries was advised. These are otherwise the questions which cannot be examined at this stage and no opinion should be expressed. The contention that the petitioners have huge business empire and hold assets and, thus, the question of demand of dowry is highly improbable, are the issues which do not require detailed discussion at this stage. There are otherwise the allegations and counter allegations which are seriously contested issues of fact.

25. Petitioner No. 1 had also moved a complaint to the Senior Inspector General of Police, Mumbai on 29.08.2013 (Annexure P-2) making several allegations against his wife. What happened to the said representation/complaint is still a moot question.

26. After obtaining transit bail from Bombay High Court, the petitioners filed application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali, which was declined vide order dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-6).

27. In view of the aforesaid facts, the remedy for the petitioners was to approach this Court for pre-arrest bail and not to seek quashing of FIR at the threshold. Learned Senior counsel for the complainant has pointed out that the petitioners instead moved for regular bail before Sessions Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The application of petitioners No. 2 to 4 was allowed whereas that of petitioner No. 1 was dismissed on 01.10.2013. Copy of order dated 01.10.2013 has been placed on record by the learned counsel. It is contended that the petitioners were supposed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and after conclusion of remand proceedings, if any, that such an order could be passed. Learned counsel also urged that suo motu cognizance may be taken by this Court to examine as to how such an order could be passed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It was, however, submitted that a separate petition would soon be filed for the said prayer. For that matter the complainant could take appropriate recourse.

28. Normally the arrest warrants in offences involving matrimonial disputes are not applied at first instance. Government of Punjab circulated instructions dated 20.10.2009 issued by Government of India, Department of Home Affairs, vide memo No. 21/66/2009-1H6/2339 dated 18.11.2009 to the State Police for curtailing misuse of provisions of Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code so as to lay to rest the allegation of misuse of this provision. The relevant extract of the aforesaid instructions is reproduced as under:-

(a) & (b) xx xx xx xx

(c) In cases of matrimonial disputes, the first recourse should be
to affect conciliation and mediation between the warring spouses and
their families and recourse to filing charges U/s 498A IPC may be
resorted to in cases where such conciliation fails and where there
appears a prima facie case under Section 498A and other laws. The
Counselling mechanisms envisaged under PWDV Act, 2005 should be
instituted by State Government and any counselling of parties should
be done only by professionally qualified counsellors and not by the
police. The police may consider empanelling professional counsellors
with the CAW Cell.

The aforesaid instructions were also forwarded to all the Senior Superintendent of Police in the State of Punjab vide Endst. No. 5241-65 dated 31.12.2009. It seems that in the present case the Police obtained arrest warrants of the petitioners from Area Magistrate of District Mohali as the offence involved was also under Section 307 IPC which was not there in the original FIR.

29. There was also an offer from the petitioners for settling the dispute through mediation but that was totally rejected on behalf of the complainant.

30. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners also urged that in the circumstances of the case this Court may also consider a plea for granting bail to the petitioners in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am of the considered view that when there are specific provisions in the Code for the said purpose, it would not be appropriate to do so in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

31. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate also relied upon Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein it was held that:-

26. Nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant
and that does not debar the court from exercising its jurisdiction
which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure
prescribed which procedure is mandatory. If in a case like the
present one the court finds that the appellants could not invoke its
jurisdiction under Article 226, the court can certainly treat the
petition as one under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code. It may
not however, be lost sight of that provisions exist in the Code of
revision and appeal but sometime for immediate relief Section 482 of
the Code or Article 227 may have to be resorted to for correcting
some grave errors that might be committed by the subordinate courts.
……………………”

32. It may be true that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be treated a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure but that question does not arise in the instant case. In Savitri Goenka Vs. Kusum Lata Damani and others, 2008 Crl. L.J. 441, Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that practice of converting application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to one for bail in terms of Section 438 or 439 Cr.P.C. has not been approved.

33. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners also contended that this Court has ample power to order an enquiry how Section 307 IPC was added. I do not think that the said issue requires attention of this Court at this stage as the matter is still under investigation.

34. From the above discussion, the instant petition is dismissed. The observations made in this order will have no bearing on the disputed facts.

(R.P. NAGRATH ) JUDGE

October 05, 2013

jk

abla claims few crores spent on marriage, gifts, car etc &Opposes bail. Husband &famly denied bail! Gift list & expenses an eyeopener.

While Indian weddings are known to be big affairs, here is one that has a lot of pomp, but unfortunately ended in a dowry case !! Sadly the case was filed MANY months after the split up and is now being fought in courts

“… the Roka ceremony in our house at Faridabad where they spent about `5.63 Lacs and gave cash Sagan to the Chopra family worth about `16.57 Lacs and Gold coins & Jewellery worth `.18.00 Lacs. My Parents had also invited about 300 people from our family/ friends to formally declare the marriage of mine. The Sagan given by my family/friends amounting to `.3.50 Lacs was also handed over to Mrs Veena …”

“… demanded that the clothes, bags, shoes and other articles of the marriage should be purchased from the branded stores like Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Prada, Christian Dior, Bottega Venetta, Fendi, Salvatore Feraggamo, Versace etc. ….” “..     of shoes, bags, apparels, etc. My family had to spend Approx. `.20 Lacs on these articles …”

“… required lot of money and more time. My father contacted Sh. Dharmendra and gave an advance of `. 3.00 Lacs for the renovation of the house. The renovation work started in full swing however could not be completed at the time of marriage. My parents had paid `6.50 to the contractor for the renovation and ` 4.50 Lacs to FCML for the bathroom fittings …”

“…  relatives. On the day of Lohri we could take cash/jewellery worth about 15 Lakhs. After the Lohri Mrs. Veena Chopra got very angry and said that she is very unhappy due to non fulfillment of her demand of gifts of ` 25 Lakhs …”

“… 2009. On 13.2.2009, my parents arranged a ring ceremony and Sagan at our house wherein we invited 700 guests from both sides and spent about `.62.13 Lacs, the list of which is enclosed herewith. On 16.2.2009, the formal marriage took place at a farm house in Juana Road, Mandi Road, New Delhi, wherein almost about 1200 people were invited and my parents had incurred an expenditure of `139.40 Lacs, as per demand of my in-laws, the list is enclosed …”

“…  23. I am under sever depression since October 2009 and am getting the treatment from Dr. Rajeev Kapoor in Faridabad. I am having anti depressant tablets to control my emotional self. I am unable to understand why my in-laws have subjected me with this filth, when my father has fulfilled all their demands of gifts/ jewellery worth Crores of rupees …”

“…  in white colour should be given to him during the wedding. On his constant demands and looking into my future, my father had to book this car for an amount of `.88 lacs. The model of this car was sent to us for the wedding on 13.2.2009 …”

A brief tally of the above adds up to approx 3+ Crores. One can only wonder what else was spent on legal fees etc. But what is lost is peace of mind and happiness that every home should have !
*************************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.M.No.M-34686 of 2010(O&M)

Date of Decision: May 22, 2012

Vinod Chopra and another     …..Petitioners
v.
State of Haryana        ……Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

Present:

Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr.K.S.Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana, with ASI Vishnu Mitter.
Mrs.Baljit Mann, Advocate for the complainant.

***************

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.599, dated 23.10.2010, under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad (Haryana).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which applications filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail were dismissed.

It is pertinent to reproduce the FIR lodged in this case at the instance of complainant-wife, namely, Shweta Chopra, to the Commissioner of Police, Police Station Central Faridabad, which reads as under:-

”    Dated:- 23-10-2010

To The Commissioner of Police,
Police Station, Central,
Faridabad.

Subject : Criminal complaint against Mr. Varun Chopra (Husband),
Mrs. Veena Chopra (Mother- in- law), Ms. Vidhi Chopra (Sister-in-
law) & Shri Vinod Chopra (Father-in-law) all resident of D-1/33,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, for committing various offences of Cruelty,
Demand of Dowry, physical & mental assault and Criminal Breach of
Trust.

Sir,

1. I married to Varun Chopra according to Hindu customs, rites and
ceremonies at Sewa Farms, Jaunapur Mandi Road, New Delhi on
16.02.2009 in the presence of the friends & relatives and soon after
the marriage, I was tortured, abused, assaulted and was treated with
utmost cruelty on various occasions by my in-laws in order to
pressurize me to fulfill their illegal and unlawful demands of dowry.
My husband Varun Chopra, mother-in- law Veena Chopra, father-in-law
Vinod Chopra and sister-in- law Vidhi Chopra, tortured me physically
and mentally to the extent that I felt like committing suicide and
give up my life. I initially did not make any complaint and suffered
the cruel behaviour of these people, but when it became a continuous
act on day to day basis, I contacted my parents and narrated all the
incidents giving rise to the present complaint.

2.This all started in Feb. 2007 when we were sent a marriage
proposal through a local marriage broker for the matrimonial alliance
of myself with Varun. However, looking into our financial and social
status, Chopra family was very keen to get their only son married to
me at any cost. In the month of May, 2008, Mrs. Veena Chopra called
up my mother and started talking about me. She made various
representations about the credibility of their family and also the
respect which they command in the society. She further stated that
her son Varun Chopra was engaged earlier but has called off the
engagement and she is very much interested in having matrimonial
relations with our family.

3.That on her constant persuasions and various representations, my
parents thought of meeting them and thus we invited Shri Vinod Chopra
and his family to our house on 21st June 2008. We had a brief meeting
in our house in Faridabad. Varun had a chat with me for some time. In
the month of Oct./Nov. 2008, I attended one of the Diwali parties of
my friend where I met Varun again. After that Diwali party, Varun
started sending messages to me and also started making calls on
regular basis, trying to please me and also showing his inclinations
for getting married to me. On 6.11.2008 Varun proposed me and on his
perpetual overtures and alluring talks my parents said yes for the
marriage. Before the marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Chopra demanded that
since they are marrying their son in Lakhani family it would be
expected that their relatives and friends would be given gifts in
gold and diamond only.   http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

4. Mrs. Veena Chopra came to our house in Faridabad in the morning
of 1.12.2008 and stated that she has invited about 100 people from
her family and friends who will be attending the Roka ceremony and
demanded that Sagan in cash should be given to each and every guest
who attend the Roka ceremony. She told my parents to prepare various
envelops with different amounts for their relatives. All these
envelopes were handed over to Mrs. Chopra, who stated that she would
give the same to the relatives herself later. My parents organized
the Roka ceremony in our house at Faridabad where they spent about
`5.63 Lacs and gave cash Sagan to the Chopra family worth about
`16.57 Lacs and Gold coins & Jewellery worth `.18.00 Lacs. My Parents
had also invited about 300 people from our family/ friends to
formally declare the marriage of mine. The Sagan given by my family/
friends amounting to `.3.50 Lacs was also handed over to Mrs Veena
Chopra, on her request. (The list is enclosed herewith). However
after the marriage I learnt that the envelopes were never given to
the relatives/friends and were retained by my mother in law.

5. On 7.12.2008 Mrs Veena Chopra and her daughter Vidhi Chopra
visited our house in Faridabad and stated that they wanted the
shopping for the marriage to be done from branded stores. They
demanded that the clothes, bags, shoes and other articles of the
marriage should be purchased from the branded stores like Louis
Vuitton, Gucci, Prada, Christian Dior, Bottega Venetta, Fendi,
Salvatore Feraggamo, Versace etc. Both of them proposed names of
various branded stores in Delhi and Mumbai and stated that goods
should be purchased only from there. My Parents had no option but to
purchase the articles from the said branded stores for the wedding.
During this period, Mrs. Veena Chopra and her daughter Vidhi Chopra
made numerous calls making demands for purchase of a particular brand
of shoes, bags, apparels, etc. My family had to spend Approx. `.20
Lacs on these articles.

6. In the first week of Dec. 2009, Vinod Chopra called my parents
and said that the 2nd floor of the house, where Varun stays is in a
bad condition and in case we want Shweta to stay there, then my
parents should renovate and restructure the entire floor for them.
Being pressurized my parents decided to get their house renovated at
their own expenses. My father immediately contacted Mr Rajan Sood,
Architect and M/s D K Builders, the contractor, Sh Dharmendra for
renovating/ restructuring of the house of my in-laws. They also said
that the renovation should be completed before the date of the
marriage so that Shweta can shift in that portion of the house
immediately thereafter. Since it was an old house, the renovation
required lot of money and more time. My father contacted Sh.
Dharmendra and gave an advance of `. 3.00 Lacs for the renovation of
the house. The renovation work started in full swing however could
not be completed at the time of marriage. My parents had paid `6.50
to the contractor for the renovation and ` 4.50 Lacs to FCML for the
bathroom fittings.

7. On 13.1.2009 my parents had gone to the house of Chopra for
Lohri. Mrs. Veena Chopra and Mr. Vinod Chopra said that the first
Lohri has to be celebrated in a grand manner, and said that
Jewellery/Gifts worth about 25 Lakhs should be given to them. They
said that if this is not done, they would be embarrassed before their
relatives. On the day of Lohri we could take cash/jewellery worth
about 15 Lakhs. After the Lohri Mrs. Veena Chopra got very angry and
said that she is very unhappy due to non fulfillment of her demand of
gifts of ` 25 Lakhs.

8. On 23.1.2009 we had a family meeting and we decided that it may
not be appropriate to go ahead with the marriage due to their greedy
behaviour. It seemed as if they want only money and jewellery and not
our daughter. After this meeting my parents decided to call off the
marriage considering their greed for money. On my Parents insistence,
my brother-in-law Sh. Nitin Miglani informed Varun that we are trying
to call off the wedding as it would not be appropriate. However,
after that Mr. and Mrs. Vinod Chopra continued to approach us through
their friends and relatives that this will be an ideal marriage. They
gave further assurances and as we had already declared the marriage
to family/ friends, we decided to go ahead with the marriage. They
also convinced my parents that their daughter would be very happy in
the house and whatever has happened was due to some misunderstanding
and they would accept whatever is being given to them.

9. On 5.2.2009, we organized a Mata Ki Chowki at our house and
surprisingly Mrs. Veena Chopra did not attend the same. Mr. Vinod
Chopra & Varun Chopra convinced us and said that she is not feeling
well and thus has not come. Being in fear of call off marriage Mr.
Vinod Chopra insisted that they should have an Arya Samaj/ Court
Marriage on the very next day. That after being pressurized we
arranged an Arya Samaj Marriage followed by Court Marriage on 6-2-
2009. On 13.2.2009, my parents arranged a ring ceremony and Sagan at
our house wherein we invited 700 guests from both sides and spent
about `.62.13 Lacs, the list of which is enclosed herewith. On
16.2.2009, the formal marriage took place at a farm house in Juana
Road, Mandi Road, New Delhi, wherein almost about 1200 people were
invited and my parents had incurred an expenditure of `139.40 Lacs,
as per demand of my in-laws, the list is enclosed.

10. On 9.2.2009 Smt. Veena Chopra my mother-in- law and my husband
Vinod Chopra visited our house in Faridabad and demanded that each &
every guest accompanying the Barat should be paid Sagan to the
minimum amount of ` 1 lac. On their specific demand, my parents had
to prepare Sagan envelopes even for Varun’s friends and their wives.
Varun also told me that he wants that his dream car Porsche (Cayenne)
in white colour should be given to him during the wedding. On his
constant demands and looking into my future, my father had to book
this car for an amount of `.88 lacs. The model of this car was sent
to us for the wedding on 13.2.2009. However, after having a look at
the car, Varun had a change of mind and stated that he did not want
this car and it should be replaced with S Class Mercedes. Although my
father had already paid for this car just to fulfill the demand of
his son-in-law, my father immediately sent their office manager to
purchase a new S320 Mercedes car.

11. After the marriage on 17.2.2009, when I visited the house for
Phera, my parents handed over all the jewellery to me and Varun. My
parents gave gifts in the form of jewellery/ watches/ designer
clothes/ accessories for Mrs. Veena Chopra, Mr. Vinod Chopra, Mr.
Varun Chopra and Ms .Vidhi Chopra worth about `.620 Lacs as demanded
by them. On 18.2.2009 I left for Vaishno Devi and before leaving my
mother-in-law and my sister-in-law asked me to hand over all my
jewellery and my suitcases with clothes, bags etc., which I got from
her parents, on the pretext of keeping it in safe custody. I, without
understanding their real intentions, gave the entire jewellery/ gifts
to them in their custody for safe keeping. The list of
jewellery/clothes gifted to me is enclosed to the complaint.

12. I left for our honeymoon for Australia/ US for a month. Varun
after coming back to Delhi bragged that he had spent ` 20 Lacs in the
Honeymoon and demanded that this should be reimbursed to him. After
coming back from honeymoon I, found that my suitcases containing
expensive designer clothes, bags, accessories which were purchased
from US had been removed from room and were missing. I later on
learnt that all my bags containing branded clothes, handbags,
perfumes, cosmetics, accessories etc. were secretly kept by my sister-
in-law Vidhi on the instructions of her mother Veena Chopra. When I
asked about them from my mother-in- law & sister-in-law they said
that they did not know where the bags were. After the marriage, my
mother-in-law, father- in-law, husband and sister-in-law, started
taunting me on day- to-day basis for not bringing adequate dowry. My
mother-in- law Mrs. Veena Chopra deliberately used to loose her
temper on trivial things and would abuse my parents in front of me
and would say that my parents inspite of being so rich acted as
‘Kanjus’ and could not give enough money to them. On one occasion
Mrs. Veena Chopra on a day of Holi got angry on me and tried to burn
by throwing boiling water on me. I however saved with minor burn
injuries. After the marriage my husband Varun also started
threatening me every night and said that his mother wanted that his
name should be put in all the properties belonging to me. He said
that the house in Faridabad in Sector 14 and 21C should be in the
joint name of Varun and Shweta and if the same is not done, I would
be subjected to torture like this for rest of my life. Varun would
also drink alcohol in the night and would beat me and lock me in the
bath room for the entire night. When I told my parents about their
new demand of transfer of properties to them, they suggested that I
should tell my in- laws that the properties belonging to me were
already pledged with the bank and my parents would get the same
cleared and would get the property transferred as per the wishes of
my husband and in-laws after some time. I was told that I should tell
them that it might take 9 months to one year. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

16. Soon after the marriage, my husband Varun started beating me
physically and one day he and his mother hit me so badly that I
suffered injury on my legs and I bled profusely. After beating Varun
ran away from the house. Mr.s Veena instigated Varun to give me more
beatings. When I got hurt badly and there was no body to attend to
me, I called up my sister who took me to Dr. NK Pandey at Faridabad
and he gave me medication. I had bodyache all over my body because of
the severe beating given to me by Varun at the instance of my mother-
in-law. I had to take medicines for one month.

17. One day I learnt that my husband Varun is having an affair with
one Maneka. I also found out that they were having this relationship
from the last many years and the reason of marrying me was only money
and lots of dowry. I learnt that Varun had decided that after
marrying me he would dump me and would marry Maneka. It seems as if
Maneka was also party to the entire conspiracy.

18. In the first week of Sept. 2009, Mr. Varun and Mrs. Veena Chopra
fought with me and locked me in the room at about midnight. I was
again badly beaten up and was thrown on the bed. My husband Mr. Varun
brought a knife and raised threat that he would kill me. While the
room was locked, I somehow managed to call up my sister and narrated
the entire incident. My elder sister and my brother-in-law
immediately rushed to my matrimonial house. At the first instance
they were not permitted to enter the house and the guard locked the
main gate stating that he had instructions from Madam not to open the
gate for anyone. When I was about to call the police, the guards to
open the door and my elder sister could meet myself. They spent
nearly four hours in the house trying to sort out the problem but the
behaviour of Mrs. Veena Chopra and Mr. Varun Chopra was very
aggressive and abusive. Varun also threatened that he had good
connections in Delhi and his best friend had good connectivity with
the media and in case anyone would say anything against them, then
they would try to get them maligned by fabricating news items in the
paper against them. They also raised threat to me by saying that I
have another unmarried sister in the house and in case anything is
done, then they would do everything to damage the reputation of the
family.

19. On 26-9-2010 my mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband tried to
strangulate me in their house but somehow I managed to escape. On
26th September, 2009, I was thrown out of the house by my in- laws
with few clothing and I was abused and tortured the whole night. My
husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law & sister-in-law also forced me
to get these demands fulfilled & they all forcibly ousted me from the
house on 26-9-2009 & did not allow me to carry anything from the
house. I came to my parent’s house only in three clothes which I was
wearing at that time. All my jewelry, clothes & Istridhan alongwith
other valuables are lying with my husband, father-in-law, mother-in-
law & sister-in-law in their house at New Delhi. I came back to my
parental house and started staying with my parents. Thereafter, I
along with my father went to my in- law’s house but we were not
allowed to get in the house. Rather Mr. Varun started using the
abusive & unparliamentary language & shouted that he had told
everything to his daughter & he should asked me only. Thereafter my
parents tried to sort out the things with the help of other
respectable people but no avail.

20. In the first week of Oct. 2009, Varun came to our house in
Faridabad to meet me. He went to my room on the pretext of talking to
me. After speaking to me for 20-25 minutes, he lost temper and took
me in the corner of the room and banged my head on the wall and said
that he would not accept me in his house till the properties are not
transferred in his name. He said “Apne Baap ko keh dena ke Larki Ko
Sasural Bhejna hai to property be sath mein bhenje”. Before I could
realize what he did, Varun rushed out of the house and ran away.

21. In the last week of Oct. 2009, my parents called up my in-laws
and requested them to sort out the issue amicably in case there is
any confusion or any misunderstandings. However, they were never
interested in sorting out the problem. They said that Varun is not
interested in staying with Shweta and he is in love with Maneka and
therefore they would have a divorce by mutual consent so that Varun
and Maneka could marry.

22. I called up my husband and mother- in-law in the last week of
Nov. 2009 and asked for my jewellery as I had to go for attending a
wedding of my elder sister’s brother-in-law Parikshit Miglani at
Mumbai. However inspite of requests, no jewellery or my belongings
were given to me for the wedding at Mumbai.

23. I am under sever depression since October 2009 and am getting
the treatment from Dr. Rajeev Kapoor in Faridabad. I am having anti
depressant tablets to control my emotional self. I am unable to
understand why my in-laws have subjected me with this filth, when my
father has fulfilled all their demands of gifts/ jewellery worth
Crores of rupees.

24. I am tired of the continuous physical torture and beatings at
the hands of my husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, I have no
other option but to request you to kindly register criminal case
against my husband Mr. Varun Chopra, s/o Shri Vinod Chopra, my father-
in-law Shri Vinod Chopra, s/o Shri Amlok Rai Chopra, my mother-in-law
Mrs. Veena Chopra, w/o Shri Vinod Chopra, my sister-in-law Ms. Vidhi
Chopra, D/o Shri Vinod Chopra, for committing various offences of
cruelty, threat, demand of dowry and criminal breach of trust and
investigate the same in accordance with law and also recover the
jewellery articles, Furniture, gifts and expensive clothes from the
possession of my husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-
law.

Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,

Shweta Chopra,
at present R/o House No. 1340, Sector -14, Faridabad

Enclosures:-
List of Expenses Incurred on Roka and Courtship Ceremony, List of
Expenses Incurred on Ring Ceremony, List of Expenses Incurred on
Wedding and Phera Ceremony,List of Expenses Incurred on Personal
Jewelry, Clothes and other Items of Shweta Chopra given as per demand
of Chopra Family. Total expenditure incurred in the marriage of shweta”

A perusal of the aforementioned FIR shows that there are allegations of demand of dowry by petitioners alongwith co-accused even before solemnising the marriage. At one point of time, there was a thought in the mind of parents of complainant that they should not proceed with this marriage proposal and, however, later on they reconciled and the marriage was performed. Both the parties belong to affluent families. Lot of articles were given in dowry including jewellery, which was entrusted to all the family members including the present petitioners-accused. There are specific allegations of acts of physical torture having been committed upon the complainant by petitioners-accused and the co-accused. She has given natural version of the entire occurrence.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that husband of complainant had already been arrested and released on regular bail. It is further contended that petitioners were also granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2010. It is also contended that even as per FIR, complainant left the matrimonial home on 26.9.2009 and thereafter only fact mentioned in the FIR is that in the first week of October 2009, Varun, i.e., son of present petitioners, came to their house in Faridabad and again raised demand of property and rushed out of the house. Hence, it is contended that since then, there was no contact from the side of complainant and the FIR was lodged after about 11 months of the same. It is further contended that since interim bail was granted to petitioners-accused, there was sufficient time for the Investigating Agency to have recovered jewellery items etc., and however, no serious efforts were made in that direction. It is further contended that the alleged dowry articles, as mentioned in the complaint, are also exaggerated as no such list was prepared at the time of marriage as per the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. It is further contended that petitioners cannot be subjected to custodial interrogation for the purpose of recovery of dowry articles in proceedings under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. He has placed reliance upon Ram Wati v. State of Haryana 1996(1) RCC 199; Jagdish Thakkar v. State of Delhi 1993 JCC 117; Ravi Pranja v. State 1997 JCC 123; Crl.M.No.M-16933 of 2000 decided on 6.3.2001 (Ram Labhaya Vij @ Ram Labhaya Vig and another v. Union Territory, Chandigarh); Smt.Neera Singh v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 287; and Baldev Raj Kapoor and another v. State of Haryana 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 521. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

It is further contended that provision under Section 498-A IPC is being misused. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, JT 2010(8) SC 410, relevant paragraph of which reads as under:-

“13.The complaint in this case under Section 498A IPC has led to
several other cases. It is mentioned that a divorce petition has been
filed by the husband of respondent no.2. Both respondent no.2 and her
husband are highly qualified and are working with reputed
organisation like Tata Consultancy Service. If because of
temperamental incompatibility they cannot live with each other, then
it is proper that they should jointly get a decree of divorce by
mutual consent. Both respondent no.2 and her husband are in such age
group that if proper efforts are made, their re- settlement may not
be impossible.”

Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel as well as by learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that though husband of complainant, i.e., son of present petitioners, has already been arrested and interrogated and, however, no jewellery item has been recovered. Rather he stated that all the jewellery articles are in the custody of the present petitioners. It is further contended that though petitioners joined the investigation and, however, they are not cooperating and recovery of jewellery is yet to be effected. Further contended that there are specific allegations of various acts of cruelty having been committed upon complainant by all the family members including the present petitioners and that the complainant has given natural version of the occurrence in the detailed FIR lodged by her. Further submitted that petitioners themselves appeared before Hon’ble Delhi High Court for anticipatory bail and Hon’ble Delhi High Court granted transit bail to petitioners with a direction to surrender before the concerned Magistrate in Faridabad latest by 8th November 2010 and, however, instead of complying with the said order, they filed another anticipatory bail applications before the Court of Sessions, Faridabad, which were declined vide orders Annexures P7 and P8. Hence, it is contended that another application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. It is further submitted that none of the judgments, on which reliance has been placed by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, is applicable to the facts of present case as in this case husband has himself taken the plea that all the jewellery articles are in possession of the present petitioners. It is further submitted that respondent-complainant has given all the details of jewellery articles given in dowry and entrusted to the present petitioners and the other persons and detail was also mentioned in the income tax returns as well as in the account books of the firm of the father of the complainant and that all the details including bills and income tax returns have been provided to the Investigating Officer, a fact which is not disputed by learned State counsel.

It is further submitted that after complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home, divorce petition was filed by son of petitioners, i.e., husband of the complainant on 8.2.2010 and, however, when complainant filed petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the said petition was withdrawn. It is also contended that son of present petitioners is having relations with some other girl, namely, Maneka, and he intended to contract the marriage with her after seeking divorce from the complainant. Hence, it is contended that in view of serious allegations of harassment and cruelty including physical violence and in view of the fact that jewellery articles are yet to be recovered, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused.

As is clear from the aforementioned facts, complainant has given detailed and natural version of the entire occurrence starting from the time when talks for marriage were initiated. Many gift items were given before the marriage and at the time of shagun and engagement ceremonies. Sufficient amount was spent on the marriage. Many jewellery articles were given in marriage which was accounted for in the account books of the father of the complainant and income tax returns. Bills for purchasing the same were also handed over to the Investigating Officer. However, none of the said jewellery articles has been recovered. She has given details of all the acts of cruelty being committed upon her by petitioners and other family members. There were also allegations of acts of physical violence. She was even tried to be strangulated by petitioners and other co-accused. Hence, she had to leave the house of the petitioners. The cruelty was to the extent that there were allegations that petitioners wanted to contract the marriage of their son with some other lady. Son of the petitioners also filed a divorce petition just after few months of complainant leaving the house of petitioners.

It is pertinent to reproduce the order passed by learned Delhi High Court in the petition moved by petitioners, which reads as under:

“Petitioners, in the instant petitions, are seeking transit bail in
case FIR No.599/2010 registered at Police Station Faridabad Central
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC read
with Section 34 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners are
innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case because
of a matrimonial discord and they apprehend immediate arrest by the
police.

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the
request for anticipatory transit bail is allowed, subject to the
condition that petitioners shall put in appearance before the
concerned Magistrate in Faridabad, latest by 8th November 2010.

It is directed that in the event of their arrest, respective
petitioners Vinod Chopra, Veena Chopra and Vidhi Chopra shall be
released on anticipatory bail till 8th November 2010 on their
furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one
surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Officer/SHO concerned in order to enable them to appear before the
Court concerned.

Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Court
Master.”

However, instead of surrendering before learned Magistrate, anticipatory bail applications were filed before learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed and then before this Court. Though interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners on 26.11.2010 and though petitioners joined the investigation, and however, jewellery articles are yet to be recovered.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and another’s case (supra) observed that though large number of cases come across in which complaints are not bona fide one and filed with oblique motive and, however, there are also rapid increase in genuine cases of dowry harassment.

The present is such a case of harassment and acts of cruelty having been committed upon complainant on account of dowry. She was turned out of the matrimonial home and, thereafter divorce petition was filed. Efforts were also made by this Court to reconcile the matter. Parties were also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and, however, mediation failed.

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners- accused.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Vinod Chopra and Veena Chopra for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Interim order dated 26.11.2010 stands vacated.

22.5.2012                                          (Ram Chand Gupta)

Judge

meenu

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

100 Women Gangsters into Currency, meth smuggling. Their sisters doing 498a, DV are yet to be unmasked !

Source : Indian Express

100 Women Gangsters Give Delhi Police a New Headache

CRIMES THEY COMMIT: Murder, extortion, robbery, running prostitution rackets, trafficking women from India and abroad, smuggling fake currency and banned substances, peddling drugs through well-organised networks, kidnapping and selling children under NGO cover, running burglary gangs

■ THEIR TRAITS: They are ruthless and cunning, and have no hesitation in wiping out their male counterparts. Many of them come from lower middle-class families, and some of them have inherited criminal empires from men.

 

Published: 21st Jun 2015 06:00:00 AM

In early March, Delhi Police’s Crime Branch received a tip-off that drugs and fake Indian currency notes were being smuggled into the country from a new destination—Bangkok. As a team headed by Assistant Commissioner of Police KPS Malhotra started investigating, it discovered that a Pakistani agent was the one funnelling the counterfeit rupees through a conduit in the Thailand capital, which in turn was shipping them to Delhi. It was both a lucrative operation as well as an ISI plot to destabilise India’s economy. After a month-long investigation that involved undercover operatives, wire tapping and surveillance, when the Crime Branch officers swooped down on the Indian contacts of the Pak-Thai operation, they were in for a rude shock. In the world of smuggling dominated by men, the culprits were two women—40-year-old Rekha and 36-year-old Sheetal Singh.

Police discovered that they had adopted the unique method of smuggling the fake currency hidden in talcum powder containers. During interrogation, the police discovered that Rekha was the real mastermind of the international cartel being run in connivance with two Pakistanis, Raja and Amjad, who were living in Bangkok. The big bucks involved were enough lure for the godmother of global crime to get involved in smuggling banned drugs like Ketamine, Ephedrine and Ecstasy to India. Rekha and Sheetal  began their criminal career by smuggling garments into Bangkok and then bringing electronic goods back to India. They came in contact with the Thai underworld  and met Pakistani agents. Neither of them had previous criminal records, though they had been operating for the past six years. In the process, the police discovered they had a new headache. Women in Delhi taking to crime as a big new trend, hard to detect and interrogate. Records reveal around 700 women criminals are operating in the capital, and over 100 run their own gangs, lording over the men.

While the police have been concentrating on male gangsters, they find it tough to apprehend the women, because of scant information and a shortage of women cops. Delhi’s female dons, who travel accompanied by armed male bodyguards, driving fancy cars, living in posh localities, govern wide criminal empires—drug cartels, prostitution rackets, murder squads, kidnapping, and running gangs of robbers and musclemen.

The Scary World of Women Mobsters

■ CRIMES THEY COMMIT: Murder, extortion, robbery, running prostitution rackets, trafficking women from India and abroad, smuggling fake currency and banned substances, peddling drugs through well-organised networks, kidnapping and selling children under NGO cover, running burglary gangs

■ THEIR TRAITS: They are ruthless and cunning, and have no hesitation in wiping out their male counterparts. Many of them come from lower middle-class families, and some of them have inherited criminal empires from men.

■ WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO CATCH THEM? The police have been so far concentrating on male criminal empires and have only recently woken up to the challenge. Setting up surveillance takes time, and there is a shortage of intelligence and women police staff. The women gangsters keep changing their safehouses and use forgers to carve out new names and identities for themselves.