In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-28803 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:11.5.2009 Shangara Singh and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and Sections 5/31 of the Domestic Violence Act. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant-Kulwinder Kaur. Petitioners No.3 and 4 are the brothers-in-law of the complainant-Kulwinder Kaur, being the brothers of her husband Prabhjit Singh. The marriage between the complainant Kulwinder Kaur and her husband was solemnized on 7.7.2003. At that time, the complainant-Kulwinder Kaur had come from USA for 22 days. Thereafter, she again came to India in the year 2004 and the parties stayed together for four months. The husband of the complainant, namely, Prabhjit Cr. Misc. No.M-28803/2008 [2] Singh went to USA in the month of July 2007 after he had got immigration. The parties had a daughter, namely, Kamalpreet on 7.9.2005. Thereafter, on account of matrimonial dispute, the parties separated on 12.4.2008. Prabhjit Singh-husband of the complainant filed a petition (Annexure-P.2) for divorce in the Circuit Court, Wayne, Family Law Division. The complainant filed her reply/counter claim (Annexure-P.3) to the said petition in which she inter alia stated that there has been a breakdown in the married relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony has been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved. In this manner, there is a counter claim for divorce. It was prayed that the marriage be dissolved. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the present FIR on 6.10.2008 at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. This Court vide order dated 5.11.2008 considered the contentions of the learned senior counsel that the matrimonial dispute had taken place between the husband and the wife in USA and the petitioners were residing in India. Therefore, it was contended that the allegations of harassment could not stand. Accordingly, interim bail was granted to the petitioners. During the pendency of this petition, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved on 27.4.2009 by the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne in which all claims between the parties have been settled. The photostat copy of the consent judgment of the divorce dated 27.4.2009 has been placed on record. The dispute that survives is regarding the gold ornaments. According to the learned counsel for the complainant 40 Tolas of gold ornaments which were given by the parents of the complainant at the time of her marriage are with the petitioners and these are still to be Cr. Misc. No.M-28803/2008 [3] recovered. Leaned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had gone with the photographs of the items along with the articles to the Police Station after getting them assessed and it was stated that Hardeep Singh son of Kulwant Singh (sister's husband of the complainant) refused to accept them by saying that these articles do not belong to them. This aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State, who, on instructions from SI Surjit Singh, Police Station, Sarhali, has submitted that the petitioners indeed did come with the articles and photographs and Hardeep Singh (sister's husband of the complainant) was offered to take them. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that these were not the articles which were given by the parents of the complainant at the time of marriage and these were different. In any case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State, on instructions that the petitioners have joined the investigation and their custody is not required for the purpose of investigation. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted on 5.11.2008 is liable to be made absolute as the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by the mutual consent. The other various claims have been settled by the matrimonial Court. Accordingly, the order dated 5.11.2008 is made absolute. The complainant, however, would be at liberty to claim their articles as given without prejudice to their rights to claim. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. The petitioners in the event of their arrest shall be admitted to Cr. Misc. No.M-28803/2008 [4] bail. However, they shall join the investigation as and when called. May 11, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*