Crl. Misc. No. M-34569 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-34569 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 1, 2011 Puneet Pal Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate and Mr. Ashok Khichi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr.H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of his wife Narinderjit Kaur. Marriage had taken place on January 11, 2009. A son was born to the couple. The complainant has alleged that her father had spent huge amount on the marriage and gave gold jewellery and household articles in dowry. Few days after the Crl. Misc. No. M-34569 of 2010 [2] marriage, a demand of car was raised. The parents of the complainant purchased a Santro Car but it did not please the petitioner. She was physically and mentally tortured. On June 5, 2009 she was gave beatings by the petitioner as such she left for her parental home. On July 17, 2009, she visited her matrimonial home but was not allowed to enter. Complainant has alleged that on account of beatings given to her she was admitted in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. The matter was later on compromised and the couple started living separately. A complaint submitted by her regarding cruelty was withdrawn. The petitioner did not mend his ways. On May 7, 2010 when the couple was in Life Line Kidney Hospital, the parents of the complainant also reached there. There was a clash between the parents of the complainant and the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is M.Tech. from Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh and is working as Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering Department of Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana. On July 18, 2009, the complainant had left for the house of her parents and taken away all her clothes. Later on, on July 20, 2009, she has submitted a complaint to SSP, Jalandhar against the petitioner and his family members by levelling false allegations of demand of dowry. The complainant had been pressing hard that the petitioner should left his family and live separately. On July 25, 2009, matter was compromised and it was decided that complainant will reside separately at Village Lasara where she was working as a teacher in a private school. It was also decided that the parents of the complainant and the petitioner will Crl. Misc. No. M-34569 of 2010 [3] not interfere in their matrimonial life. The gold sets lying with the parents of the petitioner were handed over to the complainant. All the gold articles were taken by the complainant. On October 20, 2009, a son was born out of the wedlock. Temporarily the relations between the families became cordial. As son of the petitioner and the complainant got unwell, he was admitted in Kidney Hospital, Jalandhar on January 10,2010 where he was operated upon. It has been vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been performing his duties towards his wife and his parents but the complainant did not want the petitioner to keep contact with his parents. Petitioner was beaten up on May 7, 2010 regarding which MLR was prepared. Copy of the same has been placed on record. Petitioner sought action against his in-laws for giving beatings to him. The complainant also submitted a complaint in counter-blast. The police had opted to register FIR against the petitioner. An attempt was again made by this Court to get the matter amicably settled. The matter was sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The parties were called and required to resume cohabitation. It appears that both the parties are adamant not to resume cohabitation as both of them have got misapprehension that it will not be safe for both of them to stay together on account of the previous history. It is unfortunate that the petitioner and the complainant though highly educated are not able to settle the matrimonial controversy. It will not be appropriate to enter into the niceties of the trial to find out as to who is at fault. Crl. Misc. No. M-34569 of 2010 [4] Petitioner claims that all the dowry articles and jewellery has been handed over to the complainant. The parties had been levelling allegations against each other. Matter had earlier been compromised but again the matrimonial discord has arisen. The complainant sticks to the allegations that she has been treated with cruelty, on account of having not been able to meet the demand of dowry raised by the petitioner whereas the petitioner has levelled allegations that the complainant has not made any attempt to adjust in the family. Whether the criminal prosecution has been made a tool to pressurize each other by both the parties or whether both have actually been treated up to the expectations of each other, is not required to be determined at this stage. Both the parties have been trying their level best to harm each other to satisfy their individual egos. This Court does not find any extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. Nothing said in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail or to approach this Court again in case the matter is amicably settled. December 1, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE