April 02, 2019:
In an interesting case, Delhi High Court has declined to direct the victim to return the amount of ₹15 lakhs which she had received from the accused at the time of anticipatory bail, despite the fact that accused was ultimately discharged from the case.
Bench of Justice Gauba has passed the judgment titled as Anil Kumar Jain vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 26.02.2019.
The Hon’ble Judge observed as “Petitioner Anil Kumar Jain insists that he is entitled to restitution of the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs which was released to the complainant pursuant to the above-noted proceedings. It may be that the criminal case insofar as the said petitioner is concerned has come to an end. After all, he and his wife have been discharged, by order dated 09.12.2015. But, as is noted by the Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order dated 29.03.2017, the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs had been tendered, in absence of the petitioner’s son from India, on his behalf “towards full and final settlement” of the “entire claim of permanent alimony, srtidhan. etc. of the complainant”. This was a proposal which was initially mooted through the mediation process in district court, Dwarka, it being mentioned before the learned single judge at the time of hearing on the bail application no. 923/2011 on 08.07.2011, the petitioner through counsel having conceded that he had “no reservation about accepting the said proposal”.
The Court further noted that, "The subsequent orders passed on bail application no. 923/20911 make it absolutely clear that payment was tendered by petitioner Anil Kumar Jain on behalf of his son, and received by the complainant, towards settlement of her claim for permanent alimony, stridhan etc., this position having been reiterated, as already noted, in the order dated 25.04.2012, treating the payment to be in the nature of compensation for dowry articles and right to maintenance. At any rate, Nitin Jain, son of Anil Kumar Jain, has continued to elude the legal process in India. It is clear from the above-noted developments that he had tendered the amount of money for and on behalf of his son. The case against the son Nitin Jain is still pending and has not reached conclusion. In these circumstances, no question arises of the complainant being called upon to return the money”.
Anil Kumar Jain was father-in law of the victim and Nitin Jain was husband. The Court considered the earlier payment of Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony. Though the payment was given by Father-in law but the same was treated as given on behalf of the husband as appearing from the factual scenario of the earlier case related to anticipatory bail. In such circumstances, the High Court treated the amount as payment for alimony and held that Father-in law was not entitled to ask for return despite the fact that he was discharged from the case.
Read the judgment here:
Picture Source :
