Criminal Misc.-M No. 9391 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 7.9.2011 (1) Criminal Misc.-M No. 9391 of 2010 (O&M) Rohtas Singh Yadav .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent (2) Criminal Misc.-M No. 11189 of 2010 (O&M) Vinay Yadav .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent (3) Criminal Misc.-M No. 12206 of 2010 (O&M) Roshni Devi .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent (4) Criminal Misc.-M No. 15556 of 2010 (O&M) Sandeep Yadav .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Criminal Misc.-M No. 9391 of 2010 [2] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Pooja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sunil Panwar and Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocates for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned four petitions, as the same arise out of one FIR. The FIR is a result of matrimonial dispute between Munesh and Sandeep Yadav (petitioner in Criminal Misc.-M No. 15556 of 2010). Other petitioners are the father-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth) and mother- in-law of complainant-Munesh. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 8.12.2004. No child was born out of the wedlock. There was no major dispute between the couple except some small differences, which usually happen in day to day life. However on 5.3.2008, the wife left the matrimonial home. On 17.3.2008, brother of the wife had beaten up the husband and his family members, for which he tendered apology. Thereafter, taking various NGOs and women organisations along with them, the wife and her family members held demonstrations outside the house of the petitioners and made it difficult for them to live in the society. On 19.3.2009, the husband filed a divorce petition. The wife filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act on 25.5.2009, which was later on dismissed as withdrawn. Reply in the divorce petition was filed by the wife on 8.7.2009 and it was thereafter that the FIR in question was got registered on 22.1.2010 with false allegations. The submission is that a perusal of the facts stated by the wife in reply to the divorce petition and in the FIR clearly establish that the story is totally false and concocted. There are number of contradictions therein. In the reply filed to the divorce petition, which was prior in time than the FIR, it was stated that after one week of the marriage, demand of rupees one crore was made for purchase of office by the husband, whereas Criminal Misc.-M No. 9391 of 2010 [3] in the FIR, it is stated that on the next day of marriage, rupees fifty lacs and BMW car were demanded. Similarly, regarding payment of certain money in September, 2006, there are different allegations in the reply and the FIR. As far as dowry articles are concerned, the petitioners have returned most of them and are willing to return rest of the dowry articles. They have taken truck load thereof to the police station many times, but no one took delivery thereof. There is no allegation in the FIR that any demand of dowry was made prior to the marriage. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there were total 11 accused named in the FIR, six of them were found to be innocent. Sister-in-law of the complainant (Jethani) has already been granted pre-arrest bail. Though some of the dowry articles have been recovered, but recovery of rest is still to be made. It is not disputed that the petitioners have joined investigation. However, the challan has not been presented till date as the entire recovery has not been made. The same will be presented now. Learned counsels for the complainant submitted that during the pendency of matter before this court, on 28.6.2010, Additional Commissioner of Police, City West Gurgaon was directed to resolve the issue and in case the petitioners return the dowry articles/stridhan to the complainant, the needful be done. He reported that attitude of the petitioners was not for settlement. There was dispute regarding the dowry articles as well. Learned counsel further submitted that nothing hinges on the discrepancies in reply to the divorce petition vis-a-vis the FIR as reply in the divorce petition was filed in response to the allegations contained in the petition. The wife was beaten up. She got herself medically examined in Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi on 4.5.2009. This shows the extent of cruelty. Considering the fact that dowry articles have not yet been returned by the petitioners, they are not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made by them, as noticed above, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. Mere dispute regarding recovery of dowry articles does not justify custodial Criminal Misc.-M No. 9391 of 2010 [4] interrogation. There are apparent contradictions in the reply to the divorce petition as well as the FIR and also certain instances have been quoted after the complainant had left the matrimonial home. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner(s) in all the petitions is made absolute. The petitions stand disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 7.9.2011 mk