Crl. Misc. No.M-35403 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-35403 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 21, 2011 Swaran Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.D.R. Singla, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is mother-in-law of complainant Sukhwinder Kaur @ Baljinder Kaur, who was married to the son of the petitioner and had lodged FIR, alleging that her husband and all other family members had maltreated her and demanded and obtained cash from the father of the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the son of the petitioner is residing in USA and that till 2005, the complainant had been Crl. Misc. No.M-35403 of 2010 [2] residing with the petitioner in India. After the death of her father, she went to her parental house. The husband of the petitioner had given a plot of 3 marls to the complainant. Thereafter a sum of ` 15.50 lacs had been given by the petitioner to the complainant and deposited the same in her account. But when the husband of the complainant needed money for his treatment for Cancer, the complainant had issued two cheques regarding which a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands filed against the complainant w.e.f. August 2009. The present FIR has been registered on November 2, 2010 after 12 years of marriage, as a counterblast to the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to contend that the complainant has filed a petition for divorce on the basis of the conduct of her husband and that she had actually been harassed and treated with cruelty by the petitioner and her son alongwith other family members. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has already joined investigation. There appears to be a money dispute besides matrimonial dispute between the complainant and her husband. A divorce petition has been filed by the complainant. It appears that in order to pressurize the son of the petitioner to agree to divorce, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. I have also considered the contention of counsel for the complainant that recoveries are yet to be effected. Crl. Misc. No.M-35403 of 2010 [3] So far as the allegation of counsel for the complainant is concerned that recoveries are to be effected, I am of the opinion that the marriage being 12 years old and there being no specific articles having been misappropriated by the petitioner, the petitioner can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner she will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that she will join investigation as and when required by the police and that she will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the parties in any civil proceedings pending between the complainant and any of the family members of the petitioner. September 21, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE