Reena Katyal v. State

1. Apprehending their arrest in ease FIR No. 94/2015 under Section 2015:DHC:10614 A 498A/304-B/354/34 IPC petitioners Reena Katyal and Rahul Katyal who are the sister-in-law and brother-in-law ofthe deceased Pavini Ahuja have filed separate applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for grantofanticipatory bail.

2. On 25.02.2015 on receipt ofa call in police station Greater Kailash from AIIMS Trauma Centre regarding admission of one lady namely Pavini Ahuja by herfather after fallfrom terrace ofthe said house and died in the hospital,police officials reached the hospital.Enquiry revealed that it was a case of unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Inquest proceedings were conducted by area SDM and statement ofSh.Rajender Ahuja,fatherofdeceased wasrecorded wherein he alleged thatPavini was married to Amrinder Singh on 23.04.2011. Her in-laws had started demanding and harassing for dowry.Before the marriage,sister-in-law of Pavini namely Reena Katyal had demanded that decoration work be got done by Geeta Samual Decor. For photography and videography they suggested Badal Studio in place ofPrem Studio who had covered L N Mittal and Shilpa Shetty. Rahul,Nandoi ofthe deceased told her that his wife Reena suffers from backache so he cannot do sex with her. He told Pavini to get fit with him so that his as well as Pavini's married life will go on smoothly. Amrinder Singh demanded a showroom while his father Satnam Singh demanded FD worth lacs. After registration of the FIR, statement of Rajender Singh was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein he reiterated the allegations againstthein-laws,ReenaKatyaland Rahul Katyal.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners duly assisted by Mr.Rajiv Mohan,Advocatethatthe petitioners got married much prior to the marriage ofdeceased with Amrinder Singh. The matrimonial house of deceased Pavini Ahuja was C-34, 2"'* Floor, East ofKailash,New Delhi whereas the petitioners are resident of16 Oak Drive,DLF Farms,Chattarpur,New Delhi. The house ofthe father ofthe deceased where she died is house No. W 134, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The petitioners were residing separately with their children aged about 7 years and 4 years for last more than 10 years and as such,has no interference in the family life of Amrinder Singh alias Sumit. Yet they have been wrongly dragged in this FIR. Due to some matrimonial disputes, Pavini Ahuja started residing at her parental home since 26.11.2013 and petitioners had no eontact with her. Teamed counsel for the petitioners also referred to the status report for submitting that the allegations as per the papers and two diaries written by Pavini Ahuja contain following allegations againstthem:

(i) On 19.08.2014 when she was present in Vasant Kunj Mall accused Rahul

Katyal alongwith husband of deceased met and threatened her that they will notlet her get divorced so easily. ^ (ii) Rahul Katyal visited the house when she was alone ather in laws house. There he committed sexual harassment and tried to touch her.

(iii) Once deceased Pavini was walking down stairs in the mall her mother in law and sister in law i.e. Reena the present applicant abused her and hit her with bags and threatened to wait how they will min her. Again all including Rahul and Reena met herin the mall and tortured her.

(iv) Reena's behaviour not good.Birthday Sagan thrown.

(v) On Karvachauth Reena told that her mother had given sets to her and her mother in law.Sothe parents ofPavini should also give them the same.

(vi) On 7.04.2014 she has written thatthey all are torturing her,even after she is living in her parents' house. Husband Amrinder@Sumit had also told ^ her that his parents and Reena sister and Rahul had told him (husband), notto bring back her(Pavini)from her parents house.

(vii) She was harassed and tortured by her in laws on the pretext of not respecting Reena and Rahul.

4. It is submitted that none ofthese allegations bring the case within the four comers of Seetion 304 B IPG. It is submitted that these allegations fall they are ready tojoin investigation as such,they be released on bail.

6. Applications are opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as by counsel for the complainant. Ms.Fizani Hussain, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that besides the statement made by the father ofthe deceased,the diary maintained by the deceased speaks about the harassment caused to her at the bands of the petitioner and their family members. Each and every allegations in the diary is covered by Section 32 of the Evidence Act and tantamounts to dying declaration of the deceased. Moreover, mother-in-law of the deceased is absconding. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations,the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.

7. Mr.K.K.Manan, Advocate for the complainant also submitted that there are specific allegations ofharassment and demand ofdowry.The question whether provisions of Section 304B IPG is made out or not, is not required to be seen at this stage, since at thisjuncture,the Court is only considering the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail or not. When the allegations were made by the father against the petitioners and other family members,he was not even aware thatthe deceased wasinthe habitofwriting diary which was subsequently recovered and that speaks about the pathetic tale of the deceased. A petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed, however, Amrinder Singh,husband ofthe deceased did notappear atthe time offirst motion, rather told her that he will not allow her to get divorce so easily and demanded asum ofRs.lO crores for divorcing her.Due to the harassment caused to her,the deceased took the extreme step and met an unnatural death assuch,petitionersare notentitledto bereleased onbail.

8. Needless to say,Pavini Ahuja has met an unnatural death within seven years ofher marriage.However,the petitioners are Nanad and Nandoiof the deceased who got married about 10 years prior to the marriage of Pavini Ahuja with Amrinder Singh. Admittedly, they were living with

5. short ofproving that soon before her death deceased was subjected to cruelty or the cruelty was in connection with or for fulfilment ofillegal demand ofdowry. Evenforattractingthe provisionsofSection354IPC,there mustbesome assault or use of criminal force against the woman with the intent of outraging her modesty. There are no allegations ofany assault or use of criminal force so as to attract the provisionsofSection 354IPC.During the period from 26.11.2013 till 25.02.2015, a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree ofdivorce by mutual consent was filed before the Family Court in April, 2014. There are no allegations in this petition regarding any harassment or demand of dowry by the petitioners. Alongwith the petition,areceiptdated 19.04.2014 wasfiled showingthat deceased had received her stridhan articles and no claim in respectofany -< stridhan articles or any dowry articles from the family ofthe petitioner except the amount settled was left. The allegation that on 19.08.2014 at Vasant Kunj Mall the petitioner Rahul Katyal and his brother-in-law met the deceased and threatened that they will not let her get a divorce so easily is false as on this date the petitioner was in Muradabad. Reliance was placed on a number ofjudgments in support ofthe submission that whenever matrimonial relations turned sour,there is tendency on the part of the complainant and her family members to rope in all the family members. It was further submitted that the statement made by the deceased to her father or the allegations made in the diary ofthe deceased does notcome withinthe purview ofSection 32ofthe Evidence Act.Only those allegations which can be the proximate cause ofdeath is covered by Section 32 ofthe Indian Evidence Act. However,even in the diary,there is no such allegations which could bring the case within the purview of Section 304 B IPC. Father of petitioner Reena Katyal has already been arrested. Her brother has surrendered. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioners have roots in the society, have two minor children to support, /< their family and children at 16 Oak Drive DLF Farms, Chattarpur, New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was residing in her parental home since 25.11.2013 till this unfortunate incident has taken place.