Mayank Pathak vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) &Amp Anr

T1 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2845 OF 2014

MAYANK PATHAK .... PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .... RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, Delhi denied

to the petitioner anticipatory bail, in view of the serious

allegations made by Mrs. Anisha Sharma, wife (respondent -

Signature Not Verified complainant) under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi

Aggrieved, the petitioner (Mayank Pathak) approached the Delhi Date: 2014.07.23 11:32:29 IST Reason: 1 High Court. The Delhi High Court has also rejected the

petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail, in view of the serious

allegations of illegal demands of dowry made by the petitioner on

the complainant and cruel treatment.

2. The High Court has observed that there are allegations of

the complainant that she suffered bleeding due to beating and

could not save her pregnancy. The High Court has also referred

to the medical record of 6th February, 2013 on which the complainant visited Dr. Krishna Snagwan at Rohtak along with

the petitioner due to bleeding and threatened abortion, which

ultimately resulted in miscarriage. It is thus found that there is

also objective material for denial of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner.

3. As noted earlier, a First Information Report (FIR) was

lodged by the Mrs. Anisha Sharma, complainant/respondent no.

2 with the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Maurya Enclave,

New Delhi making serious allegations of illegal demands of

dowry, beating etc., as mentioned above. Particular instances

are set out in the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini

Court, Delhi, dated 21.12.2013 as also the Order of the Delhi

High Court dated 18.02.2014 and we do not consider it

necessary to reproduce the same.

2

4. Suffice it to say that the courts below have found the

allegations serious enough to deny grant of anticipatory bail. We

are entirely in agreement with the observations and prima facie

conclusions of the courts below.

5. In this case, we would like to make a note of the fact that

attempts made to reconcile the parties for an amicable

settlement of the dispute have met with failure, mainly, due to

the denial and refusal of the petitioner and his family to return

the complainant’s streedhan, which according to the complainant

is valued more than Rs. 50 lakhs. According to the petitioner, he

has no such articles of the complainant and that the complainant

has taken back not only her articles but also those from the

petitioner’s family. The petitioner has not agreed to this even

though the complainant has not asserted any demand of alimony

in case of mutual divorce but only asked for return of her

articles. The respondent even complained that the petitioner’s

father threatened herself and her father with consequences of filing the case. For reasons best known to the petitioner, he has

ultimately stuck to his stand and the attempts for amicable

settlement have been unsuccessful.

6. This Court finds it unfortunate that the parties cannot

settle such a matter and the petitioner is willing to fight out the

matter in court. We are conscious that the statements made in

3 the court in the attempt for conciliation are not evidence before

the court and will not be used as such. In any case, we are of

the view that the allegations of cruelty and torture at the hands

of the petitioner and the alleged desertion of the complainant as

a result of beating, completely disentitle the petitioner to any

consideration for anticipatory bail.

7. In view of the above, we find no merits in this special

leave petition and the same is dismissed. The orders of the High

Court and Additional Sessions Judge are affirmed.

..........................................................J. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

........................................................J.

[S.A. BOBDE]

New Delhi, July 21, 2014

4 ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.5 SECTION II (FOR JUDGMENT) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2845/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/02/2014 in BA No. 2468/2013 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At N. Delhi)

MAYANK PATHAK Petitioner(s) VERSUS

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR Respondent(s)

Date: 21/07/2014 This petition was called on for JUDGMENT today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.C. Roshan, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand ,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde pronounced the judgment of

the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti

Mukhopadhaya and His Lordship.

Special leave petition is dismissed and the order of

the High Court and Additional Sessions Judge are affirmed.

(NEELAM GULATI) (USHA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed non-reportable is placed on the file)

5