Om Prakash v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.PC praying inter alia for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.297/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station: Seema Puri.

2. The petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 1763/2012 is the father-in-law, the petitioner in BAIL APPLN.1798/2012 is the mother-in-law and the petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 68/2013 is the husband ofthe complainant.

3. Considering the fact that the dispute in the present case has arisen on account of a matrimonial dispute between Vinod Kumar(petitioner in Bail.Appln.No.68/2003) and the complainant, on 04.01.2013, at the request of the parties, they had been referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement. However, the learned Mediator had submitted a report stating inter alia that the mediation had ended in a non-settlement. Pertinently, prior thereto, vide order dated 17.12.2012, the petitioners were granted an interim protection from arrest, which has been operating in theirfavour ever BAIL APPLN. 1763/2012 and connected matters since. Further, on 28.02.2013, after perusing the mediation report, the parties were granted liberty to yet again explore the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement as had been suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite the same, no settlement has been reported till date.

4. Learned APP for the State opposes the present applications and submits that the husband of the complainant had furnished an admitted list of dowry articles before the CAW Cell as long back as in June 2012 but a perusal of the said list reveals that not even a single jewellery article has been mentioned therein though the photographs furnished by the complainant reveal that a number of jewellery articles were gifted to her at the time of her marriage, apart from cash amounts. He submits that even the admitted list of dowry articles which include a motorcycle, some electronic appliances and wearing apparel have been retained by the petitioners till date. He further states on instructions from the Investigating officer that the petitioners have not appeared before the Investigating Officer after December,

2012.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties were in mediation and he contends that when the other family members BAIL APPLN. 1763/2012 and connected matters 3of[4] against wiiom accusations had been levelled by the complainant, have been granted bail by the trial court, the petitioners cannot be treated differently and they are also entitled to the same relief.

6. Aperusal of the orders of the trial court placed on record by the petitioners reveals that two sisters-in-law and a brother-in-law of the complainant, all unmarried and two of them students, were granted anticipatory bail by the trial court as the allegations levelled against them were found to be of a general nature. The petitioners herein cannot claim parity with the aforesaid parties when specific allegations have been levelled against them in the FIR and till date, they have failed to return- any of the dowry articles despite a list of admitted articles submitted before the CAW Cell as long back as in June 2012.

7. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.

8. The interim orders stand vacated. HIMA KOHLI, 3 DECEMBER 02, 2013 rkb/mk bailAPPLN. 1763/2012 and connected matters ''^9® 4of[4]