Criminal Misc.-M No. 16967 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.10.2011 (1) Criminal Misc.-M No. 16967 of 2011 (O&M) Asha .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent (2) Criminal Misc.-M No. 18421 of 2011 (O&M) Bharat Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G. S. Chahal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions, as the same arise out of one FIR. The petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that marriage of the son of the petitioners was solemnised at Barnala on 29.11.2008. The son was already living in Australia. It was registered on 15.12.2008 at Barnala. Initially, the Criminal Misc.-M No. 16967 of 2011 [2] husband had gone to Australia, however, he came back and took the complainant to Australia on 23.7.2009. Since then both of them stayed in Australia. As there were certain differences between them, proceedings were initiated in the court there. The contents of one of the application filed by the complainant before the court in Australia were referred to submit that she admitted that the parties were living separate since 17.8.2010. The wife came to India in March, 2011 and got the present FIR registered and again went back. He further submitted that the FIR has been got registered at Gurgaon stating that marriage had taken place there, whereas it is factually incorrect, as is evident from the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriages on 15.12.2008, showing the place of marriage at Barnala. He further referred to an agreement entered into between the son of the petitioners and the complainant on 4.7.2011 in Australia. The submission is that in case there is any harassment by the husband, the same was in Australia, as the couple did not reside in India after marriage. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that immediately after the marriage, demand of ` 10,00,000/- was made, which was paid by the father of the complainant after selling his house. ` 2,67,000/- were paid by him by way of cheque to Bharat Singh, father-in-law of the complainant. Recovery of gold articles and the jewellery is yet to be made. It is not disputed that the petitioners have joined investigation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that prior to the registration of the FIR, the complainant and the son of the petitioners were residing in Australia, where the complainant admitted in the proceedings before the court that they were residing separate since 17.8.2010; the FIR was got registered at Gurgaon on 12.3.2011 alleging certain demand of dowry at the time of marriage or certain incident, which according to the complainant occurred on 6.3.2011 in India, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. Criminal Misc.-M No. 16967 of 2011 [3] Considering the aforesaid facts, the interim bail granted to the petitioners by this court is made absolute. The petitions stand disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.10.2011 mk