CRM No. M-32155 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-32155 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.01.2011 Kamala Chhabra ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Ms. Deipa Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for the complainant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.266 dated 5.6.2009 under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula. This Court vide order dated 1.11.2010 has directed to release the petitioner on interim bail. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on the instructions of Inspector Rajnish, who is present in Court, has stated that petitioner has joined the investigation. Dispute in the present case revolves around the alleged 'Will' of Nar Singh Dass i.e. deceased. As per petitioner/accused Nar Singh Dass i.e. deceased has executed valid 'Will' in her favour since she is the second wife of Nar Singh Dass. While according to the complainant, CRM No. M-32155 of 2010 -2- she is not legally married second wife of Nar Singh Dass and Nar Singh Dass has not executed any 'Will' in favour of the petitioner rather complainant has inherited the property of Nar Singh Dass being the natural legal heir and also on the basis of 'Will' executed by Nar Singh Dass. In the opinion of this Court, question as to whether the petitioner is the legally wedded second wife of Nar Singh Dass or not and whether he has executed any 'Will' in favour of the petitioner, seems to be a civil dispute which is given colour of the criminal offence, which is not permissible as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dhariwal Tobacoo Products Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra, 2009(2) SCC 370. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case in mind, petition is allowed. Order dated 1.11.2010 is made absolute, subject to the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, it is clarified that petitioner shall keep on co-operating in the investigation and if she fails to do so Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to get the bail cancelled. (Alok Singh) Judge January 28, 2011 R.S.