High CourtsSingle Bench

Rachna Soni vs State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 11 July 2014 · Citation: (2014) 07 MP CK 0059

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Palo, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 34, 498A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
M.Cr.C. No. 4792/2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 634 words

S.K. Palo, J.—This is first application for bail filed u/s 438 of Cr.P.C.

2.

Applicant apprehends her arrest in Crime 162/2014 u/s 498A, 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali Datia.

3.

As per prosecution story, on 28.4.2014 the complainant Priti Soni, wife of Abhishek Soni lodged an FIR that on 19.11.11 stating that her marriage was solemnized with Abhishek Soni observing Hindu rites. Her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law Premnarayan and Yogesh @ Ramji, Sister-in-law Rachna & Ruchi have received Rs. 15,00,000/- from her father at the time of her marriage. They were residing at Rajghat Colony, Datia. When she stayed there with them she was treated badly by her in-laws. They demanded dowry for construction of first floor and asked her to bring money from her parents. After construction of first floor, they again demanded money to purchase a house at Pune. She was ill-treated and harassed by the accused persons. It is also alleged that she sent to kitchen for making tea and gas knob kept open, when she entered in to the kitchen the accused persons try to shut the door from the outside. Somehow she managed to come out from kitchen. Despite efforts made for compromise between the parties by the other persons they sold out the house in Oct. 2013 and she was sent to her parental house. The accused persons left for Pune. They kept her ornaments with them. They shifted to Pune without informing to complainant. The landlord of the house informed about the shifting to complainant. Whereabouts of the father-in-law and mother-in-law is not known.

4.

On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that a petition for divorce was filed by husband Abhishek Soni, feeling aggrieved by this, the complainant has lodged this report. It also submitted that there has been no such incident but the applicant is falsely implicated.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per affidavit filed on behalf of applicant Smt. Rachna Soni, it is alleged that the applicant is a government servant and working as Teacher and copy of the identity card issued by the District Education Officer, Datia has also been filed in support thereof. It is also submitted that the present applicant is residing with her matrimonial home which is separate from parental house. She is wife of Prem Narayan Soni and sister of Abhishek Soni. Copy of ration card has also been filed to demonstrate this fact.

6.

It is also submitted that because of this case, she has not been able to attend her office. Her possibility of absconding is remote. Therefore, she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

7.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the present applicant Rachna along with other accused persons namely Yogesh, sister-in-law Ruchi, brother-in-law Prem Narayan and her husband along with father-in-law and mother-in-law kept the gas-knob open and sent her into the kitchen for making tea and tried to close the door from outside. Complainant somehow managed to come out from the kitchen.

8.

Considering the aforesaid, the applicant does not have a valid ground. Though it is mentioned that there are abuses of provisions of Section 498A as has been observed in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors (W.P. (Civil) 141 of 2005 decided on 19.7.2005, the present case is completely different. Strait jacket formula in, the matters relating to dowry tortures can not be formulated. At the moment, the investigation is not complete and the case of the applicant is not different that of Prem Narayan Soni (M.Cr.C. No. 4222/14) and Yogesh @ Ramji (M.Cr.C. No. 4373/14), therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail u/s 438 of Cr.P.C.

9.

Accordingly, application is rejected.