Criminal Misc. No. M- 34956 of 2017 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 34956 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 22, 2018
Ishwar Rattan …..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana ….Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.
***
LISA GILL, J.
This is the petitioner’s third petition seeking bail pending
trial in FIR No. 82 dated 17.05.2016 under Sections 498A, 406, 506,
376, 354, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Women, Gurgaon.
Earlier two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on
01.08.2016 and thereafter on 16.05.2017. The abovesaid FIR was
registered on the statement of the complainant to the effect that she was
married to the accused Mahesh and her real sister was married to
Ramesh – the real brother of her husband Mahesh on 21.06.2014. It is
stated that the mother and maternal uncle of the complainant had given
dowry much beyond their means. A Scorpio car was also given. Details
of the articles including the old and silver ornaments are mentioned. It
is stated that expense of about `50 lakhs was incurred on the marriage.
It is further stated that on the next day of the marriage itself, all the
1 of 6
04-03-2018 16:37:58 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 34956 of 2017 (OM) 2
accused persons as well as the husband of her sister expressed their
unhappiness with the articles given in marriage and stated that it was
settled that the vehicle Fortuner as well as `50 lakhs in cash would be
given as their land had been sold for crores of rupees. They further
stated that the complainant’s mother did not fulfil their demand,
therefore, they had to face insult in society. Both the sisters were
subjected to ill-treatment and harassment. They narrated the same to
their mother on coming to their parental home. A panchayat was
convened. The accused persons admitted their mistake while stating
that their elder son wished to start some business for which he required
money but in any case they promised not to harass the complainant and
her sister. A sum of `2 lakhs was given to the petitioner. However, the
complainant and her sister were again sent back from the matrimonial
home with another demand of gold chains of 5 tolas each. Nobody
came to take them back from the parental home. The mother of the
complainant assured of meeting their demands on which they were
again sent back. However, the girls were still subjected to ill-treatment
on account of demand of more dowry.
It is stated that on 19.10.2014, they were yet again shunted
out from the matrimonial home with a condition that they would be
rehabilitated only on receipt of two Fortuner cars as well as cash. It is
specifically stated that the present petitioner, who is serving at
Gurugram, took the complainant and her sister to their parental home
and on the way the petitioner made inappropriate advances towards the
2 of 6
04-03-2018 16:37:59 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 34956 of 2017 (OM) 3
complainant’s sister. On 18.04.2016, the complainant was brought to
her home by the petitioner and on the way he tried to molest the
complainant. When she threatened to make a complaint, he apologised
while stating that he had committed a mistake which would not be
repeated. The complainant did not disclose the matter to anyone. A
Panchayat was held in March, 2016 again, as both the girls were not
being brought to the matrimonial home. On 10.03.2016, the present
petitioner took both of them in his vehicle to the matrimonial home.
Yet again assault was launched upon them in the matrimonial home by
the accused. The complainant’s sister, it is stated, was beaten up on
14.03.2016 by her husband and she was made to sit in the vehicle
owned by the petitioner to be sent back home. Yet again, the petitioner
committed misdeeds with the complainant’s sister, however, she was
told not to disclose the same. It is stated that on 14.05.2016, some
liniment of country made medicine was applied on the belly of the
complainant by her mother-in-law after removal of all her clothes
except her undergarment on the pretext that the complainant would
then bear a child. The complainant was made to lie on the upper portion
of the house. At midnight the petitioner is alleged to have come to the
room and forcibly committed rape upon her. It is alleged that the room
was thereafter locked from outside by the petitioner and in the morning
she was made to bathe forcibly by the accused persons. She was
threatened not to disclose this incident to anyone or her widowed
mother would be killed by throwing acid on her. At about 8.20 a.m. on
the next day, the maternal aunt of the complainant was called.
3 of 6
04-03-2018 16:37:59 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 34956 of 2017 (OM) 4
Complainant’s maternal aunt alongwith her brother, two brothers of the
complainant and three others came to the matrimonial home. The
complainant’s sister also gathered courage and disclosed the misdeed of
the petitioner qua her. The complainant side was threatened by the
accused persons and it was declared that they wanted divorce. It is on
these allegations that the above said FIR was registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the paternal uncle (Chacha) of the husband of the
complainant. He has been unnecessarily been involved only due to his
relationship in what is essentially a matrimonial dispute. Moreover, he
is the only member of the family, who is serving. Therefore, he has
been falsely implicated. Learned counsel further points out to the FSL
report (Annexure P-3) to submit that no offence punishable under
Section 376 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Moreover, all the
material witnesses, in this case, have been examined. The complainant
and the sister of the complainant has been examined. Cross
examination of the sister of the complainant is also complete. The
complainant’s further cross examination has, however, been deferred as
an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved for
summoning the husband of the complainant’s sister. It is further
submitted that there are certain DVDs/CDs, forming part of the
supplementary challan. The same are in respect to the recording of/by
CCTV cameras installed outside the matrimonial home, clearly
reflecting that the present petitioner did not go to the matrimonial home
of the complainant in the night of 14.05.2016. It is, thus, prayed that
4 of 6
04-03-2018 16:37:59 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 34956 of 2017 (OM) 5
this petition be allowed.
Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed this
petition while submitting that the complainant as well as her sister have
firmly supported the prosecution case. Moreover, there are serious and
specific allegations against the petitioner. It is contended that while
transporting the young and hapless sisters to and fro from the
matrimonial and parental home the petitioner indulged in indecent
behaviour with them. Specific allegation of rape on 14.05.2016 has
been raised. In respect to the question of the petitioner being the only
serving member, it is submitted, on instructions from ASI Fateh Singh,
that the other members of the family i.e. the husband, father-in-law and
brother-in-law of the complainant, are land owners having substantial
landholdings. All of them are well to do persons. It is, thus, prayed that
this petition be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
I have also gone through the statement of the complainant’s
sister (PW11) produced in Court today. Certified copy of statement of
the complainant’s sister (PW11) is taken on record subject to just
exceptions. The complainant as well as her sister have duly supported
the prosecution version. The FSL report depicting absence of semen on
the undergarment, alleged to have been concealed by the complainant
and thereafter handed over to the police authorities as well as the
DVDs/CDs in respect to the CCTV cameras installed outside the
matrimonial home, would necessarily be subject to the scrutiny of the
learned trial Court and cannot be commented upon at this stage. There
5 of 6
04-03-2018 16:37:59 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 34956 of 2017 (OM) 6
are specific and serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, who
is a close relative of the complainant’s husband. Both the complainant
and her sister have steadfastly stood by their version.
Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, I do not find any ground whatsoever at this stage to grant the
concession of bail pending trial to the petitioner, who has prima facie
violated a sacred relationship.
Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein
above are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no
bearing on the trial.
(Lisa Gill)
February 22, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
04-03-2018 16:37:59 :::