JAYA ROY,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Opposite party No.2
(2.) THE petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 498A and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. in connection with i.e. Complaint Case No. 757 of 2010. The complainant opposite party has filed the complaint petition alleging therein that she was married with the petitioner in the year 2008 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage the father of the complainant had given numbers of articles, Furniture, Steel Almirah and Gold ornaments, T.V., Video, utensils and many other things amounting to Rs.5 lakhs and also cash amounts but thereafter, the petitioner and his family members started demanding a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and a Santro Car from the complainant and his family members but as the complainant and her parents could not fulfill their demand, they started torturing and assault and lastly she was driven out from her matrimonial home after snatching all her STRIDHANS. The complainant has lodged the present case under Section 498A /406/34 of the I.P.C. and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. But the court has taken cognizance under Section 498A I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the dowry prohibition Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being the husband of the complainant, has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is an employee of the Indian Air Force but the father of the complainant is holding a high post at Bokaro Steel Plant. Due to this reason the complainant does not want to live with this petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner neither tortured the complainant nor demanded any dowry from the complainant or from her parents. The petitioner is still ready to keep the complainant with him with full owner and dignity and respect.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the complainant opposite party no.2 has submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner regarding the torture and demand of dowry in the complaint petition. The complainant has very specifically stated about the torture made by the present petitioner to her and also demand of dowry from her and from her parents in her statements made under solemn affirmation. It is further submitted on behalf of the complainant that as the petitioner had submitted earlier that he is ready to compromise the matter, this court has referred this matter to the Conciliator, JHALSA for conciliation proceedings vide order dated 06.03.2012. But though the petitioners appeared for two days but the opposite party did not appeared before the Conciliator and on the last date i.e. 17.4.2012 none of the parties appeared before the conciliator, the conciliation has failed. It is further submitted that in fact the petitioner is not ready to compromise, he only just to get the bail, always stated before the court that he is ready to compromise. The petitioner never paid a single rupee either to the opposite party no. 2 or their small child who is now aged about three and half years which clearly shows the attitude of the petitioner. It is also submitted (even mentioned in the Para 12 of the show cause filed by the opposite party no.2 in this case on 19.04.2012) that there is no chance of compromise from the side of the opposite party no.2.;