Crl. Misc. No.M-4262 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-4262 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 7, 2010 Amandeep Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.S.S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.D. Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Mr. H.B.S. Baidwan, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Amandeep Kaur alleging that the petitioner and his family members were not satisfied with the enough dowry articles given at the time of marriage. A sum of Rs.2 lacs had been given to enable the husband of the complainant to go abroad. It is alleged that in absence of her Crl. Misc. No.M-4262 of 2010 [2] husband, even her father-in-law had misbehaved with her. On return of the petitioner, he gave severe beatings to the complainant resulting in miscarriage. With the intervention of the relatives the complainant again went to the matrimonial home but was again beaten and harassed. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.S.Toor has vehemently contended that the petitioner is ready to resume cohabitation and that the allegations against the petitioner are false. The father of the petitioner has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to contend that dowry articles of the complainant have been misappropriated. The entire jewellery constituting the Istri Dhan of the complainant is lying with the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as State counsel besides hearing the complainant. An opportunity was given to the husband and wife to resolve the dispute amicably by appearing before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. At one stage, it appeared that the parties can part company by seeking divorce by mutual consent on account of the relations which have gone strained beyond repair on payment of lumpsum one time maintenance/ compensation for a sum of Rs.9-10 lacs but on account of controversy regarding the jewellery articles which are yet to be recovered, the matter could not be finalized. I have carefully considered the merits of the case. It is apparent that the marriage between the parties had taken place on April 20, 2008 and within few months of the marriage, the complainant was Crl. Misc. No.M-4262 of 2010 [3] maltreated to such an extent that she had to suffer an abortion and leave the matrimonial home. Since the recoveries of gold ornaments are yet to be effected; the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty being strongly made out against the petitioner; no extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. It is a case of custodial interrogation. The petition is dismissed. Dismissal of this petition will not, in any manner, hamper the rights of the parties to amicably settle the matter and part company on payment of any lumpsum compensation. September 7, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE