Pradeep Sharma vs State of Delhi

Sunita Gupta, J.—This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner Pradeep Sharma in case FIR No. 107/2013, PS Binda Pur u/s 498A/ 406/ 34 IPC. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the inducement and coercion of the complainant, the applicant got married with her at Arya Samaj Mandir, Uttam Nagar without the consent and knowledge of his family members. After marriage, complainant started pressurizing the petitioner to take Rs. 10-15 lacs from his parents so that she can settle in Singapore. When the petitioner refused to do so, the complainant threatened him to implicate his entire family in false criminal proceedings. The indecent was reported by the petitioner to SHO Bindaspur vide DD No. 12B dated 2nd September, 2012. Despite this, the complainant did not mend her ways and continued to threaten the petitioner to implicate him in false criminal proceedings. The petitioner lodged a complaint vide DD No. 24B dated 10th September, 2012.

Since the petitioner married the complainant without the knowledge and consent of his family members, family of the petitioner disowned him and the complainant vide public notice dated 10th September, 2012. When the complainant came to know about this publication, she filed a frivolous complaint before CAW Cell where no specific allegation was made against the petitioner.

The petitioner, thereafter came to know that the complainant belongs to a criminal background and many complaints were registered against her in the past. Two complaints were lodged against her in police station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi vide FIR No. 213/ 2010 dated 18th September, 2010 and FIR No. 235/2010 dated 18th October, 2010 u/s 448 IPC. On 18th September, 2010, complainant tried to commit suicide in police station by putting kerosene oil on her in the presence of police officials for which FIR was lodged and she was sent to jail. Later on in plea bargaining, the matter was disposed of. In FIR No. 235/2010, one Sh. Manu Gurbuxani made complaint against her regarding trespass into his premises.

On 27th November, 2012, the petitioner filed petition for annulment of marriage u/s 11 of the HM Act which was later on amended to dissolution of marriage which is still pending. On coming to know about filing of this petition, the complainant filed frivolous application under Domestic violence Act by implicating all family members which is still pending. Appreciating his arrest in case pending before CAW Cell, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail where seven days notice period was allowed by the Court of Sh. S.C. Rajan, ASJ, Dwarka. The complainant thereupon lodged police complaint under Sections 376/ 328/ 506 vide FIR No. 72 against the brother of the petitioner by concocting false story in which he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

During inquiry, the petitioner came to know that complainant is of criminal background and was involved in CC No. 1591/2010 under Sections 380/ 384/ 389/ 452/ 506/ 120-B IPC whereby complaint was made against her by one Sh. Manu Gurbuxani alleging that the complainant cut her wrist to blackmail him. She was admitted in emergency in Fortis Hospital under extreme drunken state. She assured Manu that she would not behave in this manner in future but she did not mend her ways. As such, a complaint was lodged by him vide DD No. 49B dated 2nd July, 2010 in PS Fateh Puri. She also leveled allegation regarding commission of rape upon Sh. Manu Gurbuxani but later on she withdrew that complaint.

It was further submitted that in the entire compliant there are no allegations of demand of dowry. Since the marriage was solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, there was no question of bringing any article by her to the matrimonial home. The allegations made in the complaint are confined to the effect that her mother-in-law asked to give her necklace so that she may bring bangle matching the necklace but there is nothing to show that the necklace was given by her to her mother-in-law. Moreover, the allegations are false inasmuch as mother-in-law is half paralyzed and is not in a position to move from bed without support.

Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the petitioner joined investigation and it was wrongly mentioned in the status report that he is not cooperating in the investigation. Since the complainant had not given any jewellery either to the petitioner or to his mother, there was no question of returning of the same.

Under the circumstances, it was submitted that keeping in view the criminal background of the complainant, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is joining investigation as and when required and undertakes to join further investigation in future, he be released on bail.

It was submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that since it is a matrimonial discord, as such the petitioner should return the jewellery articles and give alimony to the complainant and on that being done, the bail will not be opposed.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that it is a matter of investigation as to whether any jewellery item was handed over to the petitioner and it is undisputed that in pursuance to the direction given by this Court, the applicant has joined investigation, it is ordered that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/IO concerned. He is, however, directed to join the investigation as and when required. He is further required not to tamper with the evidence. In case of his change of address, he shall furnish his address to the concerned SHO. The applications stand disposed of.