Full Text
Translation output
Bail Appln.1597/2013 Page 1 Bail Appln.1598/2013
Bail Appln.1599/2013 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 08, 2015
Bail Appln.1599/2013 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 08, 2015
BAIL APPLN. 1597/2013
PINKI RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Advocate
PINKI RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Urmila Complainant- Aarti with father-
Mr. Suresh Kumar
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Urmila Complainant- Aarti with father-
Mr. Suresh Kumar
BAIL APPLN. 1598/2013
RUPESH ..... Petitioner Advocate
RUPESH ..... Petitioner Advocate
VERSUS
Complainant- Aarti with father- Mr. Suresh Kumar
BAIL APPLN. 1599/2013
KANWAR PAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners Advocate 2015:DHC:108
Bail Appln.1597/2013 Page 2
KANWAR PAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners Advocate 2015:DHC:108
Bail Appln.1597/2013 Page 2
VERSUS
Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate with complainant- Aarti and her father-Mr. Suresh Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Petitioners are the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant/ first-informant of FIR No. 144/2013, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Chankya Puri, New Delhi, who seek pre-arrest bail in these applications.
Since the above captioned three applications arise of out of one
FIR and the grounds on which pre-arrest bail is sought are common, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these applications were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR of this case, this Court finds that apart from the allegations of harassment and cruelty, there are allegations of entrustment of jewellery to the sister-in-law- Pinki of the complainant and there is an admitted list of dowry articles.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
Bail Appln.1597/2013 Page 3 that jewellery articles were worth about `1,25,000/- and most of the dowry articles have been returned and petitioners have joined investigation of this case.
Although efforts to get this matrimonial dispute settled through mediation have failed, but now both sides inform that they are willing to settle subject matter of this FIR case as well as matter of divorce and the comprehensive settlement arrived at between the parties is for a sum of
`6,00,000/- in all.
Learned counsel for petitioners on instructions submits that a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent shall be filed before the matrimonial court within two weeks and out of the settled amount of
`6,00,000/-, complainant/first-informant of this FIR shall be paid
`2,00,000/- at the time of recording of statement of parties under Section
13 (b) (i) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1951 and another sum of
`2,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of recording of statement of parties under Section 13 (b) (ii) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1951 and the remaining sum of `2,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant at the time of quashing of FIR in question. Learned counsel for petitioners fairly submits that one piece of gold jewellery and one piece of silver jewellery of complainant, which are with the petitioners, would be returned to the complainant at the time of recording of statement of parties at the first motion before the matrimonial court.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that complainant/first-informant is present in the Court with her father and she is represented through counsel. Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate, Bail Appln.1597/2013 Page 4 appears for complainant/ first-informant and he has placed on record his
Vakalatnama/ Power of Attorney and on instructions learned counsel submits that the aforesaid settlement is acceptable to the complainant.
Learned counsel for complainant has placed on record complainant’s affidavit of 8th January, 2015 consenting to the aforesaid proposal.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that if this settlement is acted upon by both the sides, then a final report shall be filed before the court concerned.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, interim order of 2nd September, 2013 is made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest, petitioners – Pinki Rani, w/o Sh. Amit Kumar, Rupesh, S/o Sh.
Kanwar Pal, Kanwar Pal, s/o Late Shri Kalu Ram and Smt. Saroj Devi, w/o Shri Kanwar Pal, be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of `10,000/- each, with one local surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
With aforesaid observations, the above captioned three applications are disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 08, 2015 r
Petitioners are the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant/ first-informant of FIR No. 144/2013, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Chankya Puri, New Delhi, who seek pre-arrest bail in these applications.
Since the above captioned three applications arise of out of one
FIR and the grounds on which pre-arrest bail is sought are common, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these applications were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR of this case, this Court finds that apart from the allegations of harassment and cruelty, there are allegations of entrustment of jewellery to the sister-in-law- Pinki of the complainant and there is an admitted list of dowry articles.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
Bail Appln.1597/2013 Page 3 that jewellery articles were worth about `1,25,000/- and most of the dowry articles have been returned and petitioners have joined investigation of this case.
Although efforts to get this matrimonial dispute settled through mediation have failed, but now both sides inform that they are willing to settle subject matter of this FIR case as well as matter of divorce and the comprehensive settlement arrived at between the parties is for a sum of
`6,00,000/- in all.
Learned counsel for petitioners on instructions submits that a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent shall be filed before the matrimonial court within two weeks and out of the settled amount of
`6,00,000/-, complainant/first-informant of this FIR shall be paid
`2,00,000/- at the time of recording of statement of parties under Section
13 (b) (i) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1951 and another sum of
`2,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of recording of statement of parties under Section 13 (b) (ii) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1951 and the remaining sum of `2,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant at the time of quashing of FIR in question. Learned counsel for petitioners fairly submits that one piece of gold jewellery and one piece of silver jewellery of complainant, which are with the petitioners, would be returned to the complainant at the time of recording of statement of parties at the first motion before the matrimonial court.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that complainant/first-informant is present in the Court with her father and she is represented through counsel. Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate, Bail Appln.1597/2013 Page 4 appears for complainant/ first-informant and he has placed on record his
Vakalatnama/ Power of Attorney and on instructions learned counsel submits that the aforesaid settlement is acceptable to the complainant.
Learned counsel for complainant has placed on record complainant’s affidavit of 8th January, 2015 consenting to the aforesaid proposal.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that if this settlement is acted upon by both the sides, then a final report shall be filed before the court concerned.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, interim order of 2nd September, 2013 is made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest, petitioners – Pinki Rani, w/o Sh. Amit Kumar, Rupesh, S/o Sh.
Kanwar Pal, Kanwar Pal, s/o Late Shri Kalu Ram and Smt. Saroj Devi, w/o Shri Kanwar Pal, be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of `10,000/- each, with one local surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
With aforesaid observations, the above captioned three applications are disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 08, 2015 r