SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ishwar Rattan vs State Of Haryana on 22 February, 2018

Criminal Misc. No. M- 34956 of 2017 (OM) 1


Criminal Misc. No. M- 34956 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 22, 2018

Ishwar Rattan …..Petitioner

The State of Haryana ….Respondent


Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.


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Earlier two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on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

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

6 of 6
04-03-2018 16:37:59 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation