In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-26900 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:21.4.2009 Anil Rajput and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. P.S. Mann, Advocate for the complainant. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 and 34 IPC. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Ms. Rashmi Rajput, wife of petitioner No.1-Anil Rajput. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Anil Rajput (petitioner No.1) on 13.2.2007. The complainant went to her matrimonial home with the dowry articles that were given. Thereafter, the mother-in-law Vidya Devi (petitioner No.3), it is alleged, started taunting her and demanded a chain. It is also alleged that when the toes of the father-in-law Data Ram (petitioner No.2) were washed, he said what type of beggars they were and the mother of the complainant had not sent anything. When the complainant told all Cr. Misc. No.M-26900 of 2008 [2] this to her husband then he said that the elders know all this, whatever they ask for, she should ask her mother to give them and stop the controversy. After two days father-in-law (petitioner No.2) and mother-in-law (petitioner No.3) called the complainant and said in front of her husband (petitioner No.1) that since they were residing in the house, the complainant should give all her jewellery for keeping it safely. When they go, they could take it. The complainant gave all her jewellery to her mother-in-law (petitioner No.3). The mother-in-law of the complainant gave her chain, Mangalsutra and one ring to wear. She was wearing the same when she came from her matrimonial home. The complainant joined her job on 9.3.2007 and started staying at her mother's house and her husband (petitioner No.1) also came at her mother's home and started living with them. He said that he has left his job and till he found a new one, he would live there. The husband used to live in the house of the parents of the complainant and misbehave with her and he also asked for money. On account of the matrimonial harassments that were meted out to the complainant, the FIR was lodged. During the pendency of the case in this Court on 9.12.2008, it was stated by learned counsel for the State on instructions that Vidya Devi (petitioner No.3)-mother-in-law of the complainant, Avinash Rajput (petitioner No.4)-elder brother of the husband of the complainant and Mithlesh (petitioner No.6)-sister of the husband of complainant were found innocent. Insofar as Anil Rajput (petitioner No.1)-husband of the complainant, Data Ram (petitioner No.2)-father-in-law of the complainant and Amar Singh (petitioner No.5)-brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1 were concerned it was submitted that though they had joined investigation but some recoveries were yet to be effected. On 3.3.2009, when the case Cr. Misc. No.M-26900 of 2008 [3] was again taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that furniture and other articles of the complainant were lying at Kanpur and it was difficult for them to bring them from there. In view of the same he had brought two demand drafts of Rs.24,000/- and Rs.26,000/- i.e. total Rs.50,000/- payable to the complainant. There was dispute regarding gold and silver items which were yet to be recovered. Besides, it was submitted that one Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.UP-75-0571 was also to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a reading of the FIR would show that the entire entrustment of gold etc. was made to petitioner No.3-mother-in-law of the complainant and she has admittedly been found innocent during investigation. As regards Pulsar motorcycle, it is submitted that the same was purchased by the petitioner No.1 and the registration is also in his name. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have, however, submitted that gold and silver items still are to be recovered from the petitioner which includes about 250 grams gold and 900 grams of silver. The list of the items, it is submitted, has been submitted by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant is, however, agreeable to accept the two demand drafts of Rs.24,000/- and Rs.26,000/- payable to the complainant as the amount due towards the furniture and household items. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that as per allegations in the FIR the gold and silver items are stated to have been given by the complainant to her mother-in-law (petitioner No.3), however, she has admittedly been found innocent during the course of investigation. Besides, a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of two Cr. Misc. No.M-26900 of 2008 [4] bank drafts dated 2.3.2009 drawn on the State Bank of India issued at Itawa bearing No.303564 and 303565 have been tendered and accepted by learned counsel for the complainant. The dispute between the parties is a matrimonial one. The petitioners have joined the investigation. The recoveries that may be due, are in the facts and circumstances liable to be inquired into. However, that would not now disentitle the petitioners to the concession of anticipatory bail. This is more so for the reason that if at some stage the parties agree to reconcile their differences then the fact that they had spent some time in custody would be a circumstance which may come in the way of amicably settling the matter. In the afore-noticed circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the interim bail granted on 20.10.2008 is made absolute. April 21, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*