CRM.M-5079 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Dec 24, 2009. Varinder Khullar and another -- Petitioners vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.C.Sibal,Sr.Advocate, with Mr.V.S.Rana,Advocate,for the petitioner Mrs.Rajni Gupta,Addl.AG,Punjab. Mr.Deepak Thapar,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.'), for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.20 dated 31.1.2009 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC, at Police Station, Rajpura City, District Patiala. The aforesaid FIR has been registered at the instance of Mansi Ghai, daughter-in-law of the petitioners, who has named four persons as accused, namely, Karan Khullar (husband), Nidhi Batra (Nanad) and both parents-in-law (petitioners) alleging that her marriage with Karan Khullar was fixed in Canada, followed by a ring ceremony performed on 16.9. 2007 in Canada and roka ceremony in India on 1.12.2007 at Abhinandan Palace, Rajpura, District Patiala, CRM.M-5079 of 2009 (O&M) 2 marriage on 4.12.2007 at Atrium Hotel, Faridabad and reception in New Delhi on 06.12.2007. It is alleged that at every stage, gifts in cash and kind including gold ornaments were given to the accused followed by gifts given on festivals after marriage, namely, Lohri etc. It is alleged that on 20.1.2008, her husband along with the petitioners came to her parental house No.145, Dalima Vihar, Rajpura and stayed there for three days. While leaving on 22.1.2008, her husband demanded from her a sum of Rs. 10 lacs in cash for purchasing a house at Canada. It is alleged that the said demand was supported by the petitioners. Her father gave Rs. one lac. to her husband, who then took her from Rajpura to Faridabad, but his demands were intact. Her husband gave her beatings for demand of Rs.10.lacs, which was abetted by the petitioners, non-applicant (Nidhi Batra) and his aunt Suman Joshi. It is further averred that she was confined in a room in pursuance of demand of Rs.10.lacs. She has also alleged that the petitioners and her husband gave her beatings on 4/5.3.2008 and turned her out of the matrimonial home and ever since she is living with her parents at Rajpura. All her articles received by her in marriage are lying in the custody of the petitioners and her husband. It is averred that a panchayat was convened on 25.7.2008 but her husband flatly refused to take her back in matrimonial home without meeting his demand of dowry. Faced with the aforesaid allegations, the petitioners apprehended their arrest and had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Patiala, on 12.2.2009. In the present petition, learned counsel CRM.M-5079 of 2009 (O&M) 3 for the petitioners has, inter-alia, submitted that the petitioners' son and the complainant are both residents of Canada who have their personal differences, which arose in Canada leading to the present FIR. It is submitted that both the husband (Karan Khullar) and wife Mansi Ghai (complainant) are now residing at Canada and the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed in the present FIR which has been deliberately lodged by the complainant at Rajpura, though marriage was performed and the alleged gifts and cash were given at Faridabad. It is further submitted that in terms of the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by this Court, the petitioners have already joined the investigation and most of the dowry articles including gold ornaments have already been recovered in terms of the recovery memo dated 30.3.2009 which has been prepared in the presence of complainant. He further referred to Bhaskar Lal Sharma and others Vs. Monica 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 866 (SC) to contend that no offence under Section 406 and 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the present FIR is a counter blast to a petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the husband of the complainant, before the learned District Judge, Faridabad. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR are categoric about harassment and cruelty to the complainant at the hands of the petitioners for demand of Rs.10.lacs which constitutes an offence under Section 498-A IPC and misappropriation of her Istridhan constitute an offence under Section 406 IPC. It is also contended that CRM.M-5079 of 2009 (O&M) 4 the FIR is not a counter blast to the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act which was filed on 16.12.2008 whereas the complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered was filed on 1.12.2008. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In this case, twice efforts were made by this Court to settle the dispute between the parties amicably but it could not be materialised, therefore, arguments have been heard on merits. It is now held by the Apex Court in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and others (Supra) that any gifts to bride groom or his parents, whether in accordance with any custom or otherwise, would not constitute an offence under Section 406-AIPC In the case of Som Mittal Vs. Govt. of Karnataka. 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 881, the Apex Court has held that often aged grand mothers, uncles, aunts and unmarried sisters etc. are implicated in such cases even though they may have nothing to do with the offence. In the present case, the differences between the complainant and her husband are due to their non-compatibility, who both are now residing at Canada. Since both the petitioners have already been released on interim bail by order of this Court dated 24.2.2009 and most of the dowry articles have already been recovered including gold ornaments, therefore, in my view, the petitioners deserve the concession of bail. As such, without observing anything on the merit of the case, order dated 24.2.2009 is hereby made absolute. The petitioners shall keep on joining the investigation as and when required and shall CRM.M-5079 of 2009 (O&M) 5 also abide by the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The petition is disposed of. Dec 24,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge