BAL RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMESH Sultania daughter of M. S. Sultania was married to Bal Raj son of Ganpat on 27. 4. 1994. Unfortunately, their marriage ran into rough weather. According to Ramesh Sultania, there was demand of dowry upon her by her husband, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and other members of the family of the in-laws. Tormented by the ever increasing demand of dowry upon her by them, she got case FIR No. 513 dated 16. 6. 1996, registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against them, at Police Station City, Gurgaon. No dowry was recovered by the police during the investigation of case FIR513 dated 16. 6. 1996 ibid, nor the police investigated that case from the stand point that there was mis- appropriation of dowry involved so far as they were concerned and as such she instituted complaint against them under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon. That complaint was sent to Police Station City, Gurgaon for investigation and registration of the case under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate. Case FIR 914 dated 21. 8. 1997 was registered at Police Station City, Gurgaon, under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against them in view of that complaint.

(2.) THIS is Crl. Misc. Petition No. 20300-M of 1997 filed by Balraj whereby he has prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No. 914 dated 21. 8. 1997 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code of Police Station City, Gurgaon. In support of this prayer for anticipatory bail, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case FIR No. 513 dated 16. 6. 1996 ibid, Ramesh alleged only the demand of dowry and her inability to meet that demand. As a sequel to her inability to meet that demand, them was ill-treatment to her by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and other members of the family. In that 206 DIVORCE & MATRIMONIAL CASES 1998 case, the petitioner, his brothers and his parents were arrested and were allowed bail by the Court. The police put in challan and that case is pending adjudication in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prosecuting the petitioner and others twice over regarding the same subject matter by Ramesh is an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner and his parents were arrested earlier and they were allowed bail by the Court. It would be travesty of justice if the petitioner is arrested over again regarding the same subject matter and vexed twice over. There appears logic in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In case FIR No. 513 dated 16. 6. 1996 ibid, there was no allegation of misappropriation of the articles of the dowry by Balraj, his parents and other members of his family. It was in the complaint which gave rise to the registration of case FIR No. 914 dated 21. 8. 1997 ibid that there appears allegations as to misappropriation of articles of dowry. Thus, the scope of these F. l. Rs. is different. It will be vexing the petitioner twice over if he is allowed to be arrested over again regarding the same matrimonial dispute with his wife. It would be unjust to put a clog on his liberty over again for the same matrimonial dispute with his wife. In Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar and Ors. , 1997 (3) RCR (Crl.) 679=iii (1997) CCR36 (SC ). , the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court directing only investigation of the complaint Put not registration of the case as a consequence of investigation.