IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-6059 of 2008 Date of decision:- 22.5.2008. Narinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the complainant on 7.4.2003. A child was born out of wedlock on 26.4.2004. On account of differences between the parties, the complainant left the matrimonial home on 7.5.2007 and she started living with her parents. A compromise was arrived at between the parties, however, the same was not adhered to by the complainant. A petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the petitioner on 12.10.2007 is already pending. The petitioner lodged FIR against the brother of the complainant on 23.1.2008 under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC as he had beaten the petitioner, in which challan has already been presented. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the reason for the wife to leave the company of the petitioner is demand of dowry, it is established by the fact that the petitioner is involved in a number of criminal cases involving crores of rupees and to settle the dispute Criminal Misc. No. M-6059 of 2008 -2- with the parties therein the complainant was pressed for bringing more dowry. The dowry articles like jewellery and cash of Rs. 1,11,000/- given at the time of marriage, is yet to be recovered. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from Sub Inspector Brij Mohan submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation, which is complete. Dowry articles have already been recovered. The petitioner is not required for any further custodial interrogation. In terms of order passed by this Court on 12.5.2008 on account of jewellery which is allegedly lying with the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant which has admittedly been paid. The other dispute in the case is regarding a fridge which was given in the dowry, which though was presented before the Investigating Officer by the petitioner but was not accepted stating the same to be not which was given at the time of marriage. Keeping in view the above facts and without recording any specific finding on any of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 11.3.2008 is made absolute. The petition is disposed of. May 22, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) ritu-II JUDGE