Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
Munna Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Nct of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 497 of 2020
Decided On : 16-03-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Hrishikesh Barua, Mr. Nishant Das and Ms. Aayushi Jain, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State with SI Vishal Tiwari, P.S. Hauz Khas
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of voluntary cooperation in the investigation and the consideration of counter-complaints in a matrimonial dispute.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Matrimonial Dispute - Section 380 IPC - [Section 380 IPC] - The court discussed the allegations of theft and the petitioner's involvement in a matrimonial dispute, highlighting the need for investigation and the petitioner's cooperation. The court also considered the counter-complaints lodged in the matrimonial dispute and the petitioner's voluntary consent to tendering his voice samples before FSL Rohini.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of theft under Section 380 IPC, arising from a matrimonial dispute. The complainant suspected his wife and the petitioner of theft and filed a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR. The petitioner's counsel argued that he was falsely implicated due to the matrimonial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had voluntarily consented to tendering his voice samples and had joined the investigation multiple times. It noted the counter-complaints lodged in the matrimonial dispute and the complainant's silence after the recovery of stolen items from the co-accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of theft, the petitioner's involvement in the matrimonial dispute, and his cooperation in the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's voluntary cooperation in the investigation, the counter-complaints in the matrimonial dispute, and the need for further investigation before granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and one surety, emphasizing that the petitioner must cooperate in the investigation as required.
JUDGMENT :
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 34/2019 under Section 380 IPC, registered at P.S.Hauz Khas.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the concerned MM and on the directions of the concerned MM, FIR No. 34 dated 2.2.2019 under Section 380 IPC was registered at Police Station Hauz Khas. As per the complainant, he got married to Ms. Chandni Dugar on 18.4.2017 at Le Meridian Hotel, New Delhi. After the marriage, the complainant found that her behavior was very surprising and noticed that she was getting calls on her mobile to which she used to react differently. Looking into the strange behavior of his wife the complainant took the mobile phone of his wife and noted the numbers i.e 8135007700, 8638664993, 7896085531 and 9706037466 and enquired from that person. But he did not disclose his name and identity. The complainant came to know that the name of that person is Munna Kumar Singh, the present petitioner. When the complainant enquired from her wife about the petitioner, she did not give any satisfactory reply. According to the complainant since the past few days many of his jewellery items and cash were being stolen by somebody and he apprehended that it was his wife, who at the instance of present petitioner or some other male person, was committing theft. According to the complainant, he had information that the petitioner with whom his wife used to talk, was coming to meet her on 3.12.2018 and they would stay together in a Hotel and indulge in physical relation.
3. During the investigation, notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C was served on the complainant to get the detail regarding stolen jewellery and cash. According to the complainant, his wife Ms. Chandni Dugar (co-accused) has stolen the following jewellery articles and gave the same to the petitioner for selling purpose. The details of the jewellery given by the complainant are as follows:-
1. 210 Gms of 24k Gold, 6 coins of 22k & 3 Coins of 24K weighing approximately 78 gms in total (belonging to his mother Lalita Devi and sister in law Priti Jain).
2. One Gold Chain (30 gm), (belonging to his mother Lalita Devi).
3. One gold necklace (40 gm) & Gold bangle 35 gms (belonging to his sister in law Priti Jain).
4. One Navlakha Necklace (belonging to his mother Lalita Devi recovered from possession of the accused persons and handed over to him on 03/12/2018 before the registration of FIR).
5. One diamond bracelet 28 gm (belong to his mother Lalita Devi.)
6. Cash Rs.1,50,000/- (belong to his mother Lalita Devi and sister-in-law Priti Jain).
7. Cash Rs.2,00,000/- (payment received for sale of jewellery from Shrimati Gems & Jewels which is complainant father shop to Anita Chandalia & Pramod Chandalia kept in his house) stolen from the house during the month of April 2018.
8. Dollars USD 1000$ (belong to her mother Lalita Devi).
4. On 3.12.2018, the police went to Hotel Hamilton Lodge where wife of the complainant was present with the petitioner and thereafter, both were brought to the police station Hauz Khas. A necklace of the complainant’s mother was found in possession of co-accused Chandni Dugar and the same was handed over to the mother of the complainant. At that time complainant had not taken any action against his wife Chandni Dugar.
5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the complaint filed by the petitioner is nothing but has arisen out of matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his wife Chandni Dugar. It is further submitted that the interim protection was granted to the petitioner since April 2019 till 11.2.2020 and during this period he has joined the investigation at least on 10 occasions. It is further argued that the petitioner has also voluntarily consented to tendering of his voice samples before FSL Rohini. It is further argued that co-accuse
