Delhi High Court - Orders
Harish Khatri vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 17 August, 2020
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1650/2020
HARISH KHATRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Tanmay Mehta, Mr Ankur
Mahindro and Ms Sanjoli Mehrotra,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Amit Gupta, APP for State with
SI Soamya Kulhar, PS Mehrauli.
Counsel for the complainant
(appearance not given).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 17.08.2020 [Hearing held through video conferencing]
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0560/2019 under Sections 468/469/471/506/120B of the IPC, registered with PS Mehrauli.
2. The said FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner's wife. She, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner was very keen to get re-married and wanted to get rid of her by any means. She claims that he had tried to obtain divorce by mutual consent by filing a false affidavit and incorrectly stating that they were separated. She states that when first motion was moved, she had reported to the concerned court that her signatures were Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location: Signing Date:17.08.2020 23:23:37 obtained under coercion and were not of her free will and therefore, the petition was dismissed. The petitioner had filed a separate divorce petition on the ground of cruelty, adultery and desertion and the complainant claims that he has placed forged and fabricated photographs before the court in those proceedings.
3. The principal allegations relate to the photographs placed by him in the said proceedings which are annexed as Annexure A-5 to the present petition. The complainant alleges that the petitioner had taken said photographs from her facebook account and from the facebook account of one Rakesh Choudhary. He had produced those photographs on a piece of paper and had falsely alleged the said photographs were downloaded from her facebook status. On the basis of the said photographs, he had contended that the complainant and the said Rakesh Choudhary were together at Golden Temple, Amritsar and the complainant and Mr Chaudhry had developed illicit relations. She stated that the same was incorrect as one of her photographs was taken when she was at Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, New Delhi and the tag below the photographs had been removed.
4. Mr Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that none of the photographs have been forged or fabricated. He stated that the petitioner had taken the said photographs (nine in number) from various sources including the facebook profiles of his wife (the complainant) and the facebook account of Rakesh Choudhary. He stated that the nine separate photographs were not filed as separate pages but were placed on one page as a collage.
5. The contention whether the said photographs are incriminating or Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location: Signing Date:17.08.2020 23:23:37 support the petitioner's allegations in the divorce proceedings is a matter, which is to be considered by that court.
6. Mr Gupta, learned APP submits that the petitioner has not cooperated with the Investigation Officer as he did not surrender his mobile phone but has simply claimed that he had disposed of the said phone and the same was no longer available with him. He has also not disclosed the name of photographer, who had assisted him in editing (photoshoping) the said photographs.
7. Mr Gupta also contended that the allegations made in the aforesaid FIR are not limited to the fabrication of photographs and evidence. The complainant has also alleged that he has been using those photographs for defaming and humiliating her including in front of their children.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the entire purpose of placing the photograph showing the petitioner wearing a saffron bandana and Rakesh Choudhary wearing a similar coloured bandana is to show that both of them were at a religious place. He submits that although these were two separate and unconnected photographs, but the same had been filed in support of the petitioner's allegation that the complainant and Rakesh Choudhary had gone together to the Golden Temple and both of them had developed an illicit relationship.
9. At this stage, it is not necessary to examine whether the allegations made against the petitioner are correct or not. However, it does appear that some of the photographs in question were downloaded from the facebook accounts of the complainant and Rakesh Chaudhary, as alleged. It also appears that at least the said photographs is not identical in all respects to the Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location: Signing Date:17.08.2020 23:23:37 one produced by the complainant as certain taglines or captions have been removed. It is an admitted case that the nine photographs, which are placed on one single page are nine separate photographs and they do not appear on a single page of any facebook account.
10. According to the petitioner all the photographs are faithful copies and he has not tampered or fabricated any photograph.
11. It is apparent that the disputes between the petitioner and the complainant are, essentially, matrimonial disputes and the same are being agitated in a different court. The complainant's grievance appears to be, essentially, that nine photographs have been placed on a single page and the same is misleading. She also claims that the background in one of the photographs has been tampered and the caption that indicated that the said photograph was taken at Gurdwara Bangla Sahib in Delhi has been removed to suggest that the complainant had visited the Golden Temple.
12. The question whether the allegation is correct is yet to be determined. It is also doubtful, whether the alleged tampering is of any material significance in the divorce proceedings.
13. In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹15,000/- and one surety of an equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the Duty Magistrate/concerned Magistrate. This is also subject to the further following further conditions:-
a) the petitioner shall provide a contact number and ensure that he is reachable on it at all times;Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location: Signing Date:17.08.2020 23:23:37
b) the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation and appear before the IO as and when called;
c) the petitioner shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi without due intimation to the IO, and;
d) the petitioner shall not disseminate the photographs or use the same for any purpose except in judicial proceedings.
14. The petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 17, 2020 MK Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location: Signing Date:17.08.2020 23:23:37