Criminal Misc. No. M-18360 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-18360 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.7.2011 Pawan Kumar Jain and others .. Petitioners v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioners are accused in FIR No. 313 dated 17.5.2011, registered under Sections 420, 406 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station, City Rohtak. The allegations against the petitioners are that for solemnising the marriage of petitioner No. 3 with the daughter of the complainant, demand of dowry was made. Roka ceremony was held on 20.2.2011. The FIR came to be registered with the allegation that though initially ` 4,00,000/- were paid but subsequently when the demand increased and the complainant could not fulfil the same, the petitioners had broken the engagement. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Roka ceremony was held on 20.2.2011 at the house of the complainant. The date Criminal Misc. No. M-18360 of 2011 [2] for Sagai was fixed as 15.5.2011 for which the petitioners had even got a banquet hall booked in Delhi, as the same was to take place there. On 8.5.2011, petitioner No. 3 received a call from one Sunil Kumar, who claimed that he had illicit relations with Nidhi Jain, fiancee of petitioner No. 3. He even informed that there is already one FIR got registered against him and his family members by his wife-Rajesh, inter alia, alleging that her husband- Sunil Kumar is having illicit relations with Nidhi Jain. Subsequent thereto, on 10.5.2011, Sunil Kumar called petitioner No. 3 again and threatened that he will face dire consequences in case petitioner No. 3 did not marry with Nidhi Jain. A complaint to that effect was made to the police. The matter was even referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre at Delhi but no settlement took place. The submission is that having come to know that Nidhi Jain was named in the FIR by the wife of Sunil Kumar alleging his illicit relations with Nidhi Jain, petitioner No. 3 could not marry with that girl. That was the root cause of dispute. To cover up that the present FIR has been got registered by the complainant. Learned counsel for the State submitted that ` 4,00,000/- given in cash at the time of Roka ceremony and ` 60,000/- spent on various bookings for the marriage by the complainant party are to be recovered from the petitioners, though they have joined investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the case registered by the wife of Sunil Kumar, false allegations regarding his illicit relations with Nidhi Jain had been levelled. In fact, in reply to the divorce petition filed by Rajesh (wife of Sunil Kumar), he had taken a stand that Nidhi Jain is his sister and in fact, she ties Rakhi to him. He submitted that there was no reason for petitioner No. 3 to have refused to marry with the daughter of the complainant as he was required to verify the allegations minutely and then take a decision. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the case of both the parties, especially the circumstances in which petitioner No. 3 refused to marry Nidhi Jain, I do not find that they are required to be taken into custody for any investigation. If any amount is to be recovered by the complainant from the petitioners, the same having Criminal Misc. No. M-18360 of 2011 [3] been spent on Roka ceremony, it cannot be by sending them to jail. For the same, the parties can sit together and settle their dispute. They can even avail of the facilities in the Mediation & Conciliation Centre. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioners on 7.6.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.7.2011 mk