Fair investigation is a hallmark of any investigation, and the accused has the right to rely upon evidence collected by the Investigating Officer if withheld by the prosecution.

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 22nd July, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the allegations prima facie do show that the petitioner did have some role or the other in the entrustment and criminal breach of trust with regard to the istridhan of the complainant. However, the learned Sessions Judge went on to observe that the complaint of the complainant dated 9th November, 2001 and supplementary statement of the complainant to some extent raise much doubt to the entire prosecution story. She also observed that the complaint in substance made allegations only against her husband for having re-married during subsistence of first marriage with the complainant. The complainant in her supplementary statement, made after the registration of FIR stated that her husband had deposited part of the istridhan before CAW Cell and the remaining istridhan was still lying with her husband. Even her next supplementary statement reiterates the same that her remaining istridhan was still lying with her husband. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however, observed that since the complainant had made allegations in the complaint that she along with her minor son escaped from the matrimonial home on 8.8.2001 in three wearing clothes and all her istridhan and dowry articles were lying with her husband and her in-laws, and her husband and in-laws refused to return her istridhan and dowry articles despite her request, a prima facie case was made out and it would not be proper to throttle the prosecution at its threshold without giving an opportunity to the complainant to prove her allegations.

.2. Complainant Smt. Radha had married Nagender Singh, son of the petitioner on 29th April, 1998. From the perusal of the statement of complainant and her complaints, it is apparent that the couple was not doing fine since her husband started having an affair with some woman, who worked in his office. Due to this reason, he filed a divorce petition against Smt. Radha in the year 1999 itself being HMA No. 962/99, which was assigned to the Court of Shri S.P.Garg, ADJ. This petition was contested by the complainant and ultimately this petition was withdrawn by Shri Nagender Singh on 24.10.2000, under an arrangement. It was decided that Nagender Singh and complainant Smt. Radha shall live separate from her in-laws in a rented accommodation; Nagender Singh took a room on rent at T-510/CT-76 Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi on 29th October, 2000 and the couple started living there. The complainant shifted to that house along with all her articles etc. Nagender Singh, however, changed his name to Naveen and married the woman called Manjusha Rani with whom he was having an affair and he started spending less time in the house where the complainant was living. When the complainant learnt about the second marriage of her husband she left the house where she was living with Nagender Singh, in September, 2001 and went to her parents house. In November, 2001 the complainant, her father and father of the boy, jointly made an application to Police Station, Punjabi Bagh giving the facts about the marriage of the complainant and withdrawal of divorce petition, then separate living of the complainant with Nagender Singh and his second marriage with Manjusha. All the three made joint request to police that a raid should be conducted at the house of Manjusha and Navin @ Nagender Singh and action should be taken. However, she thereafter filed a complaint before CAW Cell as well, against her husband wherein also her grievance was against her husband, who had conducted second marriage. She made allegations that her husband was not returning her istridhan and dowry articles. Although under the directions of CAW Cell her husband had returned some goods but the complainant averred that these were not complete goods and more istridha