CRM-M-26584-2011 [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26584-2011 Date of decision:20.12.2011 Damodar Dass and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. G.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Shivraj Angi, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral). This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case registered vide FIR No.3 dated 12.01.2011, under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at Police Station City, Fazilka, District Ferozepur. The petitioner No.1 is 73 years of age and petitioner No.2 is 65 years of age. The husband of the complainant was arrested and released on regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the husband of the complainant had always been ready and willing to rehabilitate her and had also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but she did not show her willingness. At the time of notice of motion, the petitioners, their son, namely, CRM-M-26584-2011 [ 2 ] :::::::: Puneet Verma as well as the complainant Deepika Verma were directed to be present in the Court. On the adjourned date, the petitioners alongwith their son Puneet Verma and the complainant along with her mother came present in the Court. It was agreed between the parties that the matter be sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of a compromise. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Mediator and the parties were directed to appear before him. On the next date of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is ready and willing to resume the matrimonial home and that she has no objection if the interim bail in respect of petitioner No.1 is confirmed. In view thereof, interim bail granted to petitioner No.1 was confirmed in terms of the order dated 02.09.2011 and in respect of petitioner No.2, the matter was again referred to the Mediation Centre and the parties were directed to appear before the Mediator. After some discussion, the Mediator has returned the file back to this Court. As a matter of fact, the only grievance of the complainant is that she does not want to live with her husband in a village. In this view of the matter, I do not find any fault on the part of the petitioner No.2 for which she should be subjected to custodial interrogation. Hence, the interim order dated 02.09.2011 passed by this Court qua her is also made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. The petition stands disposed of. December 20, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE