Crl.Misc. No.M-861 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 25, 2011. Crl.Misc. No.M-861 of 2010. Dr.Nirbhay Kumar Jain and another .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr., Advocate, with Mr.Pawan Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr.V.K.Jain, Sr., Advocate, with Mr.Prashant Vashisht, Advocate, for the complainant. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J. Petitioners are parents-in-law of Somya Jain daughter of complainant Sunil Kumar Jain. They seek concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered on the basis of a complaint filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioners are . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-861 of 2010 that they had maltreated the daughter of the complainant. The son of the petitioners Nishant Jain has left India. In absence of her husband, the daughter of the complainant had been maltreated. On complainant having requested, the petitioners have agreed to send Somya to America. She remained in America for ten months and was made to do odd jobs in order to torture her. The petitioners has also gone to America. They have treated the daughter of the complainant with cruelty and have left her at home to travel around America. The son of the petitioner had instituted a divorce petition in America against the daughter of the complainant. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 is suffering from different ailments. Petitioner No.2 is also an educated lady. They having joined investigation are not required for any custodial interrogation. Mr.V.K.Jain, learned Senior counsel for the complainant, has opposed the application for pre-arrest bail alleging that the petitioners are likely to abscond as their son has already left India. The recoveries are yet to be effected. It was claimed that jewellery worth lacs of rupees belonging to the daughter of the complainant had been entrusted to the petitioners on different occasions which is yet to be recovered. It has been vehemently urged that the son of the petitioner by playing fraud on foreign Court had, filed a petition for divorce against the daughter of the complainant and any decree passed by the foreign Court in matrimonial matter when the parties are covered by Hindu Marriage . . . 2 Crl.Misc. No.M-861 of 2010 Act, would be a decree without jurisdiction having no effect on the rights of the daughter of the complainant. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondents and gone through the police records. An attempt had been made to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, on husband of Somya Jain returning to India. After hearing the counsel for the parties, there does not appear to be any possibility of an amicable settlement in the matter as the mediation proceedings before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, have also failed. The documents attached with the petition are indicative of the fact that petitioner No.1 is suffering from Non Critical Artery Disease, Hypertension, BPH and Cervical spondylitis etc. and petitioner No.2, has been a patient of depression since 2006. The daughter of the complainant has obtained an injunction from the civil Court against the son of the petitioners Nishant Jain and the petitioners restraining them from solemnizing second marriage of Nishant Jain. It will not be appropriate to express any opinion whether the foreign decree, if any, obtained by the son of the petitioners ex parte against his wife would be nullity in the light of Judgment in case Y.Narasimha Rao and others Vs. Y.Venkata Lakshmi and another, (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases, Page 451. It will always be open to the concerned parties to challenge the validity of any ex parte decree passed by a foreign Court in accordance with law. The cruelty, if any, is mainly attributed to the son of the petitioners who has allegedly . . . 3 Crl.Misc. No.M-861 of 2010 maltreated the daughter of the complainant in greed for dowry. Prima facie, cruelty, if any, can be attributed to the son of the petitioners. The connivance of the petitioners with their son would be a debatable issue. The FIR has been registered pursuant to the directions of the Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A serious controversy has been raised by counsel for the complainant and the counsel for the petitioners regarding the articles, which are required to be recovered. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that about 10 gold chains, diamond ear rings and other 11 gold ginnis given at the time of marriage, are yet to be recovered. It has been argued by Mr.V.K.Jain, learned Senior counsel for the complainant that there are few documents which indicate that it is not a case of broken marriage and ex parte decree of divorce cannot defeat the rights of the daughter of the complainant. Mr.R.S.Cheema, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the daughter of the complainant had been living separately from the very beginning. She was staying in a Hostel, after the marriage, at Delhi. Thereafter, she had left for America on 04.08.2008 whereas the divorce petition was filed on 26.10.2008 in America by the son of the petitioners. The complainant did not stay, at any time, with the petitioners, as such, the allegations of maltreating her on account of demand of dowry are vague and uncertain. I have considered the rival contentions and I am of . . . 4 Crl.Misc. No.M-861 of 2010 the opinion that gold chains and other items i.e., gold ginnis which were allegedly given at the time of marriage, were entrusted articles or gift items is yet to be determined. It does not appear to be a case where the parents of the boy, who has tortured the daughter of the complainant, could be sent in custody for the crime committed by their son. So far as the articles, which are sought to be recovered from the petitioners, are concerned, it is observed that without going into the controversy of the possession of the said articles, the complainant can, for the time being, be compensated subject to any final decision regarding the articles by any Court of competent jurisdiction. Taking into consideration the estimated value of the articles claimed to be between ` 5 lacs to ` 10 lacs, it is deemed appropriate to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners subject to payment of a sum of ` 5 lacs to Somya, daughter of the complainant, without prejudice to the rights of Somya or the petitioners. The petition is allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the following conditions: - (i) That the petitioners will join the investigation as and when required by the police; (ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without the permission of the Court; (iii) That they will not tamper with the evidence or . . . 5 Crl.Misc. No.M-861 of 2010 hamper the investigation, in any manner; and (iv) That the petitioners will jointly pay a sum of ` 5 lacs in the shape of bank draft in the name of Somya within a period of one month after the receipt of a copy of this order, in lieu of tentative price of the articles which are claimed by the complainant remaining to be recovered. The bank draft will be handed over to the Investigating Officer, who will hand over the same to Somya daughter of the complainant. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 25, 2011. rka . . . 6