Satish Sharma & Anr. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 6212 Del

$-25
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     DECIDED ON : 24th AUGUST, 2015

+     CRL.REV.P. 372/2014 & CRL.M.A.No.10057/2014

      SATISH SHARMA & ANR.                                  ..... Petitioners
                           Through :    Mr.Manish Pratap Singh,
                                        Advocate.
                           versus
      STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                          .....Respondents
                           Through :    Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP.
                                        Mr.Giriraj Subramanium, Advocate
                                        with Mr.Hitesh Kumar Saini,
                                        Advocate for R2 to R4.
                                        W/SI Kamlesh Meena.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been preferred by petitioners to

challenge the legality and propriety of an order dated 19.04.2014 of

learned Addl. Sessions Judge by which the respondents No.2 to 4 were

granted anticipatory bail. The revision petition is contested by the

respondents.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. FIR No.566/13 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was

lodged by petitioner No.1, father of the petitioner No.2 against the

respondents. The respondents No.2 to 4 filed application for seeking

anticipatory bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant

and the learned counsel for the respondents, by the impugned order, the

respondents were granted anticipatory bail. They were directed to join the

investigation as and when required. They have joined the investigation.

The Trial Court has given detailed reasons for granting anticipatory bail.

Marriage between the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 took place on

30.11.2001. No complaint whatsoever was ever lodged by petitioner No.2

against the respondents No.2 to 4 for physical or mental harassment, at

any time, before 2013. It has come on record that the respondents are

USA citizens. Respondents No.2 and petitioner No.2 lived together at

petitioner No.1's house in India for about ten years. There were no

allegations of mental or physical cruelty that time. Record reveals that the

matter was referred to Mediation Centre to explore possibility of

settlement. However, the parties could not resolve their dispute. Petitioner

No.2 has filed petition under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act where

certain directions have been given to the respondent No.2 not to travel

abroad without prior permission of the Court. There are certain other

directions regarding operation of bank account. Civil Suit No.273/13 filed

by petitioner No.2 has been withdrawn on the basis of statements made by

the parties therein.

3. In the proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence

Act, no cognizance has been taken by the concerned Court against

respondents No.3 & 4. Charge-sheet in the instant FIR is stated to have

been filed upon completion of the investigation. In my view, custodial

interrogation of the respondents No.2 to 4 is not at all required merely for

recovery of the alleged jewellary taken by respondents No.2 to 4 from

petitioner No.2 on 02.01.2013. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has dealt

with this aspect elaborately in the impugned order and no deviation is

called for.

4. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order to

intervene. The revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Pending

application also stands disposed of.

5. Trial Court record (if any) along with copy of the order be

sent back immediately.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

AUGUST 24, 2015 / tr