Criminal Misc.-M No. 26540 of 2010 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 26540 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.11.2011 Malkiat Kaur ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms.Dhriti Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is an accused in FIR No. 106 dated 12.8.2010, registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, lodged by Ramandeep Kaur wife of Inderjit Singh. The petitioner is mother-in-law of the complainant. The FIR is the result of a matrimonial dispute. The husband of the complainant was already living in Italy when the marriage was solemnized on 29.10.2005. Thereafter, till December 2009, he visited India only 3-4 times. The couple was blessed with a daughter. The complainant is living in India even after her marriage. The husband took no steps to take her to Italy. The allegations in the FIR were made regarding demand of money for arranging visa for the complainant to go to Italy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to the matrimonial dispute, the petitioner is not at all concerned. Son of the petitioner is living in Italy. There is no demand of any dowry by the petitioner. In case the complainant wishes to go to Italy, the petitioner can bear the expenses thereof. The petitioner is a widow lady living alone as his Criminal Misc.-M No. 26540 of 2010 (2) son is living abroad. He is not responding to her calls. In support of her arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner cites Shakson Belthissor vs State of Kerala and another 2009 (4) R. C. R.(Criminal) 680. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that father of the complainant had paid lakhs of rupees to the petitioner and her son to satisfy their greed so that his daughter is settled in matrimonial home. However, the situation did not improve. Ever since the marriage took place on 29.10.2005, the son of the petitioner made no effort to take his wife to Italy with him. It was a kind of holiday marriage as whenever the husband came to India after his marriage, he used to live with the complainant. Since December 2009, he never came to India. The son of the petitioner purchased a house at Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali. He came to India in 2009 only to transfer that house in the name of his sister. In fact, the husband of his sister is also living in Italy. The conduct of the petitioner as well as her son shows that the intention is not to let the complainant settle in the matrimonial home. It was further submitted that the husband of the complainant has been declared a proclaimed offender. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Notice of motion in the present case was issued on 10.9.2010 and interim stay of arrest was granted. On 20.12.2010, learned counsel for the State submitted that though the petitioner had joined investigation but dowry articles had not been recovered. On 6.5.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are chances of settlement. Considering the aforesaid statement, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre in this court. However, the same having not been settled, the matter was referred back to the court. On 6.9.2011, this court passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to apprise the Court as to whether any efforts were made to take the complainant to Italy where her husband is working. The marriage was solemnized on 29.10.2005. He will further apprise the court as to whether any Criminal Misc.-M No. 26540 of 2010 (3) amount for maintenance of the complainant and the child, born out of wedlock was ever sent by the husband to the complainant.” On the next date, learned counsel for the petitioner sought more time to apprise the court about the information sought in the previous order. On 15.11.2011, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has been instructed by the petitioner to state that the husband of the complainant is ready and willing to take the complainant and her daughter born out of the wedlock to Italy where he is residing. The complainant, who is present in court does not have objection to this offer. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to ascertain the future course of action and also as to whether the husband is coming to India and when.” When the case was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not been able to contact her son. Hence, it cannot be said that whether he is ready and willing to take the complainant to Italy or not. However, she offered to bear the expenses for her going to Italy. Considering the development which took place during the pendency of the present petition and the fact that the petitioner had always been backing from her stand whereas the complainant was always ready and willing to join the company of her husband, in my opinion, no case for grant of benefit of pre-arrest bail is made out as there are specific allegations against the petitioner as well regarding misappropriation of dowry articles and demand of dowry. Judgment in Shakson Belthissor’s case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner does not come to the rescue of the petitioner considering the fact that it is a case where the NRI had married an Indian girl in the year 2005; in four years of marriage, he came to India only 3-4 times and never made any effort to take her along; the mother, who is the Criminal Misc.-M No. 26540 of 2010 (4) petitioner, also did not persuade her son to settle the complainant in her matrimonial home and there are specific allegations against the petitioner. The present petition is dismissed. 25.11.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge