Ms Shashi Gogia vs State & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 5766 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  DECIDED ON : 13th December, 2013

+                          CRL.M.C. 3057/2013

       MS SHASHI GOGIA                                      ..... Petitioner
                    Through :           Mr.Bhupender K.Tyagi, Advocate
                                        with petitioner present in person.

                           VERSUS

       STATE & ANR                                        ..... Respondents
                           Through :    Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
                                        SI Hasrat Ali, CAW/Cell/East.
                                        Respondent No.2 represented by his
                                        brother.

CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. Vide order dated 21.05.2013 in Bail Application

No.596/2013 the respondent-Anil Kishan Handa was granted conditional

anticipatory bail on payment of `2 lacs to the complainant within the

stipulated period. The order reveals that the petitioner volunteered to pay

` 2 lacs to the complainant without prejudice and subject to future

adjustment towards dowry articles. However, he did not comply with the

condition and no payment was made to the complainant. The respondent

has contended that his counsel Mr.Pramod Kr. Dubey on his own gave the

offer to pay `2 lacs which was never agreed to by him. He has lodged a

complaint with Bar Council on 29.06.2013. He is not liable to pay any

amount to the complainant and provisions of Section 498A IPC are not

attracted. Reliance was place on Sujit Kaur Chaudhary And Ors. Vs.State

2007 IX AD (Delhi) 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

opposed the prayer and urged that no review of the order can be sought at

this stage.

2. In Bail Application No. 596/2013 order dated 21.05.2013

was passed in the presence of the accused's counsel. During arguments

on the bail application, the respondent volunteered to pay `2 lacs to the

complainant without prejudice and subject to future adjustment towards

dowry articles. On his request, he was permitted to pay `50,000/- within

15 days and remaining amount of `1.5 lacs within three months thereafter.

At no stage the respondent complained if the offer to pay `2 lacs was

without his consent and against his wishes. Mr.Pramod Kr. Dubey,

Advocate, had no ulterior motive to make any such offer without his

instructions. The accused availed the benefit/relief of anticipatory bail but

did not bother to comply with the condition of payment of `2 lacs to the

complainant. He even did not move the court for review/modification of

the order. Only when the complainant moved for cancellation of bail, all

these excuses were taken to avoid agreed payment. The respondent cannot

be permitted to avail the benefit of anticipatory bail and at the same time

not to comply with the conditions imposed therein. This conduct of

respondent is not acceptable. The complainant had alleged that various

dowry articles amounting to `10 lacs were given by her parents at the time

of her marriage. In the bail petition, the accused admitted total

expenditure incurred by them to the tune of `2.5 lacs to `3 lacs. The

complainant has given a long list of dowry articles given to her at the time

of marriage. The respondent in his 'admitted' list has disclosed that

number of articles including LCD Sony 31', Bed, dressing table, mattress,

bridal lenga etc. were given. Photographs, wedding card and other

documents on record prima facie reflect that it was not a simple marriage.

No dowry articles have so far been returned to the complainant. The

respondent has alleged that dowry articles were taken away by the

complainant in his absence. The complainant has denied it. Under these

circumstances payment of `2 lacs to the complainant without prejudice

towards dowry articles cannot be termed unreasonable and exorbitant.

The respondent himself had expressed his desire to return the dowry

articles including electronics items. It shows that the dowry articles are

still in his possession. The respondent/accused cannot be permitted to

wriggle out of the offer made by him 'voluntarily' for getting anticipatory

bail. The respondent is given 15 days' time to comply with the order

dated 21.05.2013 and to make the entire payment of `2 lacs to the

complainant through Investigating Officer failing which the anticipatory

bail granted to him vide order dated 21.05.2013 will be deemed to have

been cancelled.

3. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE December 13, 2013 sa