Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 2539
High Court Of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
SHASHI KAPOOR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - Respondents
BAIL APPLICATION 2351 Of 2007
Decided On : 10/31/2007
The main legal point established is that statutory rights and personal liberty cannot be compromised or bartered, and conditions for bail cannot be onerous or compel a person to buy their freedom.
Headnote:
498a/406/34 IPC - Commercial-cum-matrimonial dispute - 498a, 406, 34
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a commercial-cum-matrimonial dispute where the complainant alleged harassment, dowry demands, and misbehavior by her husband and in-laws. The in-laws sought pre-arrest bail, claiming the complaint was false and that they were willing to deposit a sum of money as per a settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of harassment in the FIR did not relate to dowry demand against the in-laws and that the settlement executed by the husband's father with the complainant was not a sufficient basis to deny anticipatory bail to the in-laws.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the settlement, the allegations of harassment, and the entitlement to anticipatory bail based on the settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory rights and liabilities are not subject to estoppel, and conditions for bail cannot be onerous or compel a person to buy their freedom. The court also emphasized that personal liberty and statutory rights cannot be bartered or compromised.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the in-laws, directing them to deposit a sum of money and surrender their passports as terms of the bail.
( 1 ) FIR No. 259/07 Dated 12. 4. 2007 U/s 498a/406/34 IPC p. S. Punjabi Bagh it appears to be a case of commercial-cum-matrimonial dispute.
( 2 ) UMA Kapur and Shashi Kapur seek pre arrest bail in the afore-noted FIR which has been lodged by Aakanksha, Shashi Kapur is the wife of the younger brother of the father-in-law of the complainant. Uma Kapur is the mother-in-law of the complainant.
( 3 ) COMPLAINANT married Shashank Kapur on 27. 6. 2004. She claims that her father spent Rs. 1. 5 crores when marriage took place.
( 4 ) ALLEGATIONS in the F. I. R. are that her husband was a drunkard and a drug addict and that after marriage the couple proceeded to Spain for their honeymoon. Shashank misbehaved with her and hit her. From Spain, they reached London. At london also her husband would remain in drunken condition. They were left with no money. She rang up her father-in-law and requested that some money may be sent to them. He refused. Her father had to send money. They came back to Delhi. Shashank apologised for whatever had happened. They went back to London and set up residence. At London her husband used to regularly assault her. She was compelled to leave London and come back to India. That her mother-in-law and her chachi saas (Shashi Kapur) had taken away her entire jewellery.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to petitioners, Aakanksha and shashank knew each other since the year 2000. It was a love marriage. Marriage was solemnised on 27. 6. 2004. It was a dowry less marriage, After the marriage, parveen Gupta, father of the complainant and Sunil Gupta, younger brother of the father of the complainant started demanding money from Shashank's father. They told that they were in financial hardship. A company, M/s Suave Apparels Pvt. Ltd. was a family concern of Parveen Gupta and his brother. M/s Walaity Ram Kewal was their family firm. M/s Manohar Lal Kapur and sons Pvt. Ltd. was a family firm of the father of Shashank. From the account of the said family firm, Rs. 50 lacs and Rs. 60 lacs were given to M/s Suave Apparels pvt. Ltd. and M/s Walaity Ram Kewai respectively. That notwithstanding transfer of said money to the company and the family firm of the father of the complainant, it was the complainant and her family members who continued to harass the family of Shashank demanding more and more money.
( 6 ) TRANSFER of money in sum of Rs. 50 lacs and Rs. 60 lacs to M/s Suave Apparels pvt. Ltd. and M/s Walaity Ram Kewal is an undisputed fact.
( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged that gravement of the allegations in the FIR pertaining to the harassment are directed only against the husband of the complainant. That only allegation against the petitioners is of retaining the dowry of the complainant. It was urged that there are no particulars of the date, place or to whom entrustment was made. It was urged that the complaint is false. That the complainant had got her jewellery in her locker.
( 8 ) LASTLY, counsel submitted that the in-laws of Shashank are prepared to deposit rs. 50 lacs by means of a fixed deposit receipt and place the receipt at the disposal of the learned Trial judge. The amount could be disbursed at the end of the trial depending upon the result of the trial.
( 9 ) OPPOSING the application for bail, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioners are playing hide and seek with the court. That Shashank's father entered into a settlement with the complainant and her father on 4. 5. 2007 as per which it was agreed that Rs. 2. 5 crores would be paid to the complainant in full and final satisfaction of her claim for dowry and maintenance. It was agreed that Rs. 5 lacs would be paid by 8. 5. 2007, Rs. 1. 2 crores by 8. 5. 2007. Rs. 1. 25 crores would be paid by 8. 6. 2007. That it was further agreed that based on the settlement, the in-laws of the complainant would be granted anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that application for an
