Delhi High Court
Rupesh vs State on 8 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 08, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 1597/2013
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
+ BAIL APPLN. 1598/2013
RUPESH ..... 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
+ BAIL APPLN. 1599/2013
KANWAR PAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir,
Advocate
Bail Appln.1597/2013 Page 1
Bail Appln.1598/2013
Bail Appln.1599/2013
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Urmila
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 2
Bail Appln.1598/2013
Bail Appln.1599/2013
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 3
Bail Appln.1598/2013
Bail Appln.1599/2013
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
Bail Appln.1597/2013 Page 4
Bail Appln.1598/2013
Bail Appln.1599/2013
