RAJ KISHORE TAYAL AND ANOTHER Vs STATE
23/07/2004 BENCH HON’BLE JUSTICE B. N. CHATURVEDI
LAWYERS Ajay Burman, M.N. Dudeja, Geeta Luthra
The Judgment was delivered by : HON’BLE JUSTICE B. N. CHATURVEDI
1. Apprehending their arrest in case FIR No. 89/2003 under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC, PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, the petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail.
2. Shalini, the complainant, was married to Rajiv Tayal, son of the petitioners, on 26th of April, 2002. Rajiv Tayal is working in USA. The complainant stayed at her matrimonial home with the petitioners after her marriage from 27th of April, 2002 to 11th of May, 2002. At the time of her marriage, she was working in a Government hospital as a Doctor. She took leave and proceeded to USA on 12th of May, 2002 to join her husband there. She stayed with her husband in USA from 13th of May, 2002 to 16th of November, 2002. The petitioner No.2 visited her son, Rajiv Tayal, in USA in September, 2002 and stayed there until she along with the complainant returned to India after 16th of November, 2002. On her return from USA, the complainant went to stay her parents’ house only. She re-joined her duties on 1st of December, 2002. She made a complaint to the police on 20th of March, 2003 on the basis of which FIR No.89 of 2003 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC was registered against the petitioners, Rajiv Tayal(husband) and Rishi Tayal (brother-in-law), who is working in Dubai
3. Pleading for anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that after her marriage, the complainant had stayed with the petitioners only from 27th of April, 2002 to 11th of May, 2002 before proceeding on 12th of May, 2002 to USA to join her husband there. On her return from USA, the complainant, it was contended, did not stay even for a single day with the petitioners and had all along been living with her parents. The period of stay of the complainant with the petitioners, was, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, too short a period when she could have been subjected to alleged cruelty by the petitioners. It was contended that the complainant, in fact, had no intention of staying in USA with her
husband, which as evident from the fact that she had gone there only on leave and was sooner or later to join back her duties. Though, on behalf of the complainant, it was argued that she had resigned the job before proceeding to USA this turns out to be contrary to record inasmuch as in the FIR itself she states that she had taken leave from her office to go to USA.
4. Further argument was that it was only after more than three months of stay with her parents on her return from USA that the complainant rushed to make a complaint to the police and got the FIR in question registered straightway at PS Sarai Rohilla. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that normally in such like cases the complaint made by bride against her husband and in-laws is initially dealt with by Crime Against Women Cell and a case is not immediately registered. Based on guidelines for the police in that regard, purpose of the proceedings being initially taken up by the Crime Against Women Cell is to bring about a reconciliation between the estranged spouses wherever it is possible and it is only in the event of failure on this count that the relevant provisions of law are to be resorted to, to deal with the complaint. Reference in this connection was made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in ” Raj Kumar Khanna Vs. The State(NCT of Delhi) & Others”, 2002 (1) JCC. anticipatory bail could not be declined simply on the ground that recovery of certain dowry articles remains yet to be effected. To lend assurance to this argument, a Single Bench decision of this Court in ” Jagdish Thakkar Vs. State of Delhi”, 1993 JCC 117, was relied upon.
6. From the complainant side, the plea for anticipatory bail was opposed on the grounds that not only that she was ill-treated by the petitioners during her short stay with them after marriage, even during her stay in USA, they continued to instigate her husband, Rajiv Tayal, to treat her with cruelty to make her and her parents to yield to their illegal demands. According to the complainant, her mother-in-law(petitioner No.2) was instrumental in putting her to harassment when she visited USA and stated there with her and her son Rajiv Tayal. To support her allegations that ill-treatment meted out to her by the petitioners and her husband were actually aimed at getting rid of her, it was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that after sending her back from USA, her husband, Rajiv Tayal, flashed a matrimonial advertisement on inter net showing his marital status ‘Single’.
7. In the course of hearing, either side set out to blame the other for being responsible for onset of stalemate in couple’s matrimonial relations. In the FIR, the complainant recounts various instances of alleged illegal demands made by the petitioner in a happy and cheerful posture. According to the petitioners, the marriage and other ceremonies, preceding marriage, had taken place in a very cordial atmosphere.
8. During the proceedings, efforts were made to bring about some sort of reconciliation between the conflicting postures of the parties which, however, went abortive. It was noticed that notwithstanding that she was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of her husband and the petitioners, the complainant expressed her keenness to join back her husband in USA. This shows that all is not lost as yet.
9. In the facts and circumstances, on taking an overall view of the whole matter, the petition is granted and the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, are directed to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10, 000/ – each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the condition that they shall keep on joining investigation as and when called upon to do so.
10. The petition is disposed of.