CRM-M-11241 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-11241 of 2011 Date of Decision:25.11.2011 Sarabjit Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr.Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.6 dated 30.03.2011 under Sections 406 & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Women Cell, Amritsar. The FIR is registered by one Manjit Kaur in which she had alleged that petitioner had developed an affinity with her daughter Mandeep Kaur. She gave intoxicant tablet to her in tea and when she became unconscious they took `23000/- and 2 tolas gold chain and 2 gold rings from almirah and ran away. Thereafter both Mandeep Kaur and the petitioner got married on 02.09.2009 and at that time the petitioner was given gold kada and `5100/- as shagun and one pair of tops and `2100/- to his mother. It is further alleged that the petitioner is treating her daughter with cruelty while demanding more dowry and has also usurped her istri dhan. The petitioner had applied for bail before the Court below which was dismissed, hence, the present bail application was filed before this Court. CRM-M-11241 of 2011 - 2 - Notice of motion was issued on 19.4.2011 and on 03.5.2011, this Court had also issued notice to Mandeep Kaur for 08.7.2011 on deposit of `10,000/- as expenses for her appearance in Court and in the meantime, arrest of the petitioner was stayed. On 26.7.2011, it was recorded by this Court that the petitioner, his wife Mandeep Kaur and complainant (mother-in-law) were present in Court. It was alleged that both the boy and girl were in love and married against the wishes of the complainant. In view thereof, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of compromise. After some proceedings before the Mediation Centre, the case was returned because the parties could not reach to any amicable settlement. Thereafter, counsel for the complainant had submitted that Mandeep Kaur does not want to live with the petitioner and is ready to part ways for an amount of `2 lacs towards full and final settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that he is unable to pay the money. On the next date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent had communicated the Court that some compromise had taken place between the parties but since he was not sure, therefore, he prayed for time to verify the said statement. Today, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant does not want to pursue the complaint. Although, the complainant is not present but her husband Shiv Darshan Dhingra is present in Court, who has been identified by Investigating Officer ASI Baljinder Singh. Shiv Darshan Dhingra was asked about the statement having been made by the counsel for the complainant and he has submitted that they do not want to pursue the case against the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observation on the merits, order dated 03.05.2011 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. Petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 25, 2011 JUDGE Vivek