Criminal Misc.-M No. 24866 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 24866 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.09.2011 Pirthi Pal Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. J.S. Bhatti, Advocate for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the parents-in-law of the complainant. The husband was studying in Australia. He came back and wanted to settle in India. He is the only son of his parents. After marriage, because of regular harassment by the wife, he again went to Australia. A complaint was made by the wife of the son of the petitioners to the police, where the matter was compromised and it was decided that the petitioners and their son will pursue the case of the complainant for going to Australia. Visa for Australia was rejected. It is thereafter that the FIR in question was got registered by the complainant. He further submitted that in fact, the petitioners and their son were misled by the complainant. In the advertisement published in The Tribune for matrimonial alliance, the complainant did not disclose that she is a divorcee. In fact, prior to the marriage in question, she was married with one Rajan Bains in 2002, who is also living in Australia. She filed a complaint against her first husband and his family members. FIR was registered, however, subsequently all the accused, except husband therein were acquitted by the learned Magistrate on 13.05.2010. He further submitted that the marriage Criminal Misc.-M No. 24866 of 2011 2 with the son of the petitioner was registered with the Registrar of Marriages, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 17.04.2008, where the complainant claimed that she is unmarried. It is only after compromise of the dispute in the complaint filed by the complainant earlier, she got the marriage certificate corrected on 27.01.2010 mentioning that she is a divorcee. All the dowry articles lying in possession of the petitioners along with jewellery have already been returned. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that recovery of some of the dowry articles was made when the petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail by the learned court below, however, some gold is still to be recovered. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that factum of earlier marriage and divorce was disclosed by the complainant to the petitioners before marriage. After the matter was compromised earlier on December 01, 2009, Visa fee was to be paid by the petitioners and they having refused, the same was paid by the father of the complainant. As the petitioners as well as their son did not support the case of the complainant, visa was again rejected. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. They are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 05.10.2011 at 10.00 A.M. to join investigation. In case of arrest, they shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Inves- tigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 27.09.2011 sharmila