In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) Criminal Misc. No.M-18784 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:16.11.2010 Tarlochan Singh Bector .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... (2) Criminal Misc. No.M-19953 of 2010 ..... Gagandeep Singh Bector alias Gagandeep Bector .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-18784 of 2010 filed by Tarlochan Singh Bector and Criminal Misc. No.M-19953 of 2010 filed by Gagandeep Singh Bector alias Gagandeep Bector. The case arises out of the matrimonial dispute between Monila Saggar and Gagandeep Bector (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-19953 of 2010). It is alleged by the complainant that his daughter Monila Saggar was Cr. Misc. Nos.M-18784/2010 etc. [2] married with Gagandeep Bector on 10.7.2009. According to the demands of the in-laws of the daughter of the complainant, he entrusted the dowry articles to Gagandeep Bector, husband of his daughter, father-in-law Tarlochan Singh Bector (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-18784 of 2010) and mother of Gagandeep Bector, namely, Sanjyogita Bector (non- petitioner). It is alleged that the daughter of the complainant was ill-treated. Besides, her dowry articles and Streedhana were misappropriated. A list of dowry articles that was given has been attached. Proceedings to amicably resolve the dispute were carried out at the Women Cell. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the complainant is working as Superintendent in the office of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Ludhiana and he used his official position to implicate the petitioners Tarlochan Singh Bector and Gagandeep Bector. A reference has been made to the proceedings of the Women Cell in which the Superintendent of Police has recorded that it was found that it is not dowry case rather it is undue influence by the girl's (Monila's) father (complainant). They had made the couple to sit alone in front of them, however, the father of the girl (complainant) came within two minutes and said that she would speak only in front of him and did not let her speak. He also used abusive words. It is recorded that Gagandeep Bector still wanted that the girl should go with him but his father-in-law was not agreeable. Gagandeep was ready to stay with his wife in a separate home. He promised to make registry in his and his wife's name but his father-in-law was only boasting of his job in D.C. office and was forcing them to register a case against him. Dowry was no where talked during counseling. Mr. Jagmohan Cr. Misc. Nos.M-18784/2010 etc. [3] Saggar (complainant) had repeatedly agreed that he made he married his daughter only after seeing the FDs and Kothis. Boy's father agreed to deposit `15 Lacs but the complainant did not send his daughter. It was recommended that the case be not registered. According to the learned counsel for the State and the complainant, the petitioners had agreed to the Panchayati compromise which was entered into on 22.3.2010 and has been placed on record as Annexure-P.1. It is submitted that the petitioners Tarlochan Singh Bector and Gagandeep Bector have backed out from the compromise. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, however, has submitted that he is ready and even now ready to adhere to the compromise (Annexure-P.1). However, learned counsel for the complainant submits that at this stage the complainant is not agreeable for the Panchayati compromise. It is submitted that the petitioners Tarlochan Singh Bector and Gagandeep Bector have not been cooperating in the investigation and they are not getting the recovery effected. It is submitted that 39 Tolas of gold were given to the petitioners at the time of the marriage and out of them only four Tolas have been recovered. Besides, the daughter of the complainant, namely, Monila faces threat to her life and liberty in case she is to reside with her husband Gagandeep Bector. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is not in dispute that in consequence of the interim order passed by this Court on 5.7.2010 in respect of Tarlochan Singh Bector and the interim bail granted to petitioner Gagandeep Bector vide order dated 15.7.2010, the petitioners have been joining the investigation. However, according to the learned counsel for the State and the complainant the recoveries have not Cr. Misc. Nos.M-18784/2010 etc. [4] been effected. It may be noticed that the complainant has placed on record Annexures-C.1 to C.8 which are the bills of the jewellery items from Neeta Jewellers (Regd.) mentioning the jewellery which was purchased in the name of daughter of the complainant. According to Annexure-C.6, the total value of the jewellery was `2,59,990/-; besides, according to Annexure C.7 the further amount works out to `21,719/- and according to Annexure-C.8 another amount of labour and polishing which were being received is `8,000/-. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has tendered a draft of `2,80,000/- in favour of the complainant-Jagmohan Saggar which, it is submitted, may be given to him without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to refund the same in the event of the case of the prosecution not being established. It is submitted that Tarlochan Singh Bector (petitioner) is retired from the Air Force and he is to live a life of dignity, therefore, it is in view of the demand raised by the complainant that the said amount is being given without prejudice to his rights including the right to recover the same in the event of the case not being established. The draft No.143962 dated 10.11.2010 drawn on the State Bank of India, Focal Point, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana has been handed over to learned counsel for the complainant who in turn has handed it over to the complainant and has been accepted by the complainant without prejudice to his rights as it is submitted that the value of the jewellery as mentioned in Annexures-C.1 to C.7 is as of the year 2009 and now the prices of gold have enhanced. It is also submitted that in terms of Annexure-C.8 old jewellery weighing 144 grams 360 milligrams was given for which two sets for ladies of 40 grams each, four bangles and seven gents rings were made weighing 144 grams 360 milligrams. It is Cr. Misc. Nos.M-18784/2010 etc. [5] submitted that the complainant in fact is entitled to the value of said weight of jewellery also. Be that as it may, this is to be determined at the time of final hearing. At present, it may be noticed that the complainant has accepted the draft for the sum of `2,80,000/- which has been tendered by the petitioner Tarlochan Singh Bector; besides, the petitioners have been joining the investigation from time to time. The dispute is a matrimonial one and the allegations as made in the FIR are to be established and proved by the prosecution. In the circumstances, the interim bail granted to Tarlochan Singh Bector vide order dated 5.7.2010 and that granted to Gagandeep Bector vide order dated 15.7.2010 are made absolute. The criminal miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of. November 16, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*