Janak Verma vs State And Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 22 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bhasin, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancellation of anticipatory bail of respondent No. 2 in FIR No. 750/2005 for the offences under Sections 498A/406 I.P.C. registered at Patel Nagar police station granted by Additional Sessions Judge on 8-2-2006 and also for quashing of orders dated 8-3-2006 and 21-3-2006 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for cancellation of that bail was not only rejected but some of the conditions of the bail imposed vide order dated 8-2- 2006 were also removed and so unconditional bail stood granted to respondent No. 2 herein, who is the husband of the petitioner.

2. Facts leading to the filing of this petition arising out of matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 whose marriage was solemnized on 18.05.2001 are that both of them were divorcees prior to getting married to each other and respondent No. 2 was having one son and a daughter out of his previous marriage. However, soon after their marriage respondent No. 2 and his children started ill-treating the petitioner and her daughters and the disputes continued and finally led to the registration of an FIR against the respondent No. 2 for the offences under Sections 498A/406 I.P.C. at Patel Nagar police station. Apprehending his arrest respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the learned Additional sessions Judge vide his order dated 08.02.2006 granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 in view of a mutual agreement between the husband-wife that respondent No. 2 would pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- for meeting the marriage expenses of the two daughters of the petitioner. It was agreed that the said amount would be paid after sale of one shop which was in the name of respondent No. 2 and his son but in possession of the petitioner who was to hand over the possession of the shop to respondent No. 2. In view of this mutual agreement the anticipatory bail application of respondent No. 2 was allowed vide order dated 8-2-2006 subject to the accused honouring this agreement and it was further ordered that in case of failure of respondent No. 2-accused to make the payment within six months in three Installments the possession of the shop would be given back to the petitioner and also that the bail would also stand cancelled. Respondent No. 2 did not make any payment and wanted to leave the country and that led to filing of an application by the petitioner for restraining respondent No. 2 from leaving the country. During the hearing of that application it was represented to the Sessions Court on behalf of respondent No. 2 herein that his wife had not handed over the keys of the shop to him and when the Court asked her to give the keys to the petitioner she declined to do that and insisted that first her husband should give her post dated cheques. Vide order dated 08.03.2006 the said application was not only dismissed but the Court also modified the earlier bail order dated 08.02.2006 absolving respondent No. 2 from making payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the petitioner herein because of her failure to hand over the keys of the shop to her husband as per the compromise. Thereafter the petitioner moved another application in the Sessions Court for directions to the investigating officer to get the initial anticipatory bail order dated 8-2-2006 complied with. That application was also rejected vide order dated 21st March, 2006.

3. Aggrieved by the said two orders dated 8-3-2006 and 21-3-2006 the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking setting aside of these two orders and cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 herein by the Sessions Court vide order dated 8-2-2006. During the pendency of this petition also an attempt was made to bring about settlement between the husband-wife and vide order dated 13th November, 2006, on which date counsel for the petitioner had stated that he would not press for cancellation of the anticipatory bail in case it was ensured that the terms of compromise as incorporated in the anticipatory bail order dated 8-2-2006 by the Sessions Court are carried out by both the parties. This Court then directed the petitioner to hand over the keys/possession of the shop in West Patel Nagar to the respondent No. 2 to be sold on a suitable purchaser being found and the petitioner was to be paid a sum of Rs. 8 lacs by way of two FDRs of Rs. 4 lacs each favoring her two daughters. It was further ordered that in case the shop was not sold its possession shall be restored back to the petitioner and all this exercise was ordered to be completed within two months. It appears that no steps for the sale of the shop were taken by the respondent No. 2 nor did he pay money to the petitioner as per the compromise and accordingly vide orders dated 21st August, 2007 and 7th September, 2007 the respondent No. 2 was directed to return back the keys/possession of the shop to the petitioner and SHO of the concerned police station was directed to render assistance to the petitioner in getting back the possession of the shop. Thereafter arguments were advanced from both sides on merits of the petition.

4. From the fore-going it is clear that at every stage efforts were being made to bring about some kind of settlement between the husband-wife and though the settlement was arrived at during the pendency of anticipatory bail application in Sessions Court but both the parties are blaming each other for non fulfillment of the terms of the compromise. It is also apparent that the anticipatory bail application moved by the respondent No. 2 in the Sessions Court was not disposed of on merits but it was allowed because of the mutual settlement between the husband-wife terms of which have already been noticed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom an application was moved by the petitioner for getting the terms of compromise recorded in the anticipatory bail order dated 8-2-2006 implemented refused to accept that request of the petitioner and instead absolved the respondent No. 2-accused of the obligation to honour whatever he had agreed to pay to the present petitioner-complainant by observing that it was the present petitioner who was not willing to perform her part of the settlement by refusing to hand over the possession of the shop, which admittedly is in the name of the respondent No. 2 and his son. In the present petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail also attempts were made to bring about settlement between the husband-wife but those efforts have also failed.

5. The question now is whether in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner should be cancelled or not because of the husband-wife having failed to settle amongst themselves their matrimonial problems. I am of the view that since the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was not considered and allowed on merits but only in view of the parties having arrived at a settlement the most appropriate course to be adopted would be to direct re-hearing of the anticipatory bail application of the respondent No. 2-accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and its disposal on merits taking into consideration the material which may be available with the investigating agency collected so for during investigation and uninfluenced by the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2 earlier and failure of the settlement agreement for which both parties are blaming each other.

6. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned dealing with the bail matters of the district in which police station of Patel Nagar falls to rehear the anticipatory bail application of respondent No. 2 and to dispose it of on merits. The bail application would be taken up for consideration there on 31st July, 2008 on which date the investigating officer would also remain present in Court. Till the disposal of the anticipatory bail application the anticipatory bail already granted to the respondent No. 2-accused would, however, continue to remain in force and the learned Additional Sessions Judge would try to dispose of the bail application on 31st January, 2008 itself and if for any reason the hearing is to be adjourned it should not be for a long date.

7. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.