Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) ANTICIPATORY bail application filed by Umesh Kumar Singh, is moved by Sri K.P. Deo, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and opposed by Sri Mahesh Tewari, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Smt Nitu Sinha, learned Additional P.P. for the State.
(2.) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner is the husband of complainant and they have filed petition for divorce by mutual consent before the District Judge, Patiala House Court, Delhi. Thereafter, he has been threatened several time by his father ­in ­law. For that purpose, he has filed informatory petition vide Annexure ­ 3 & 4. Thereafter, the present complaint petition has been filed by the complainant in retaliation. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant submits that complainant has categorically stated at paragraph No. 10 of the complaint petition that Petitioner took his signatures on blank papers by saying that he has to file an application in the Income Tax Department and the said signed blank papers has been used for preparing petition for divorce as contained in Annexure ­2. It is submitted that complainant's father had paid five lakhs and fifty thousand rupees to the Petitioner through demand draft just before the marriage, therefore, it is not expected by the complainant that she will file a petition for divorce by mutual consent. This circumstance also shows that the aforesaid divorce petition is forged and fabricated.
(3.) HAVING heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of Divorce Petition (Annexure ­2), I find that on several pages complainant put her signatures. It also appears that photographs of both parties pasted on the said petition. Said photographs bears thumb impression and signature of parties. From perusal of said divorce petition, prima facie, it does not transpite that aforesaid signatures of the complainant obtained on blank papers.;