Criminal Misc.-M No. 20052 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 20052 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.09.2011 Manish Arora ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J. While issuing notice of motion on 07.07.2011, following con- tentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on Janu- ary 30, 2006 and a girl child was born on October 06, 2006. The parties are living separately since February 19, 2009. As the efforts for re-conciliation failed, the pe- titioner filed divorce petition on 5.10.2009 at Ludhiana. It was transferred on the request of the wife by this Court, to Ambala. Thereafter, the wife filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, transfer of which was sought by the peti- tioner. During the pendency thereof, the matter was re- ferred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre in this Court. When the matter was being taken in the Media- tion and Conciliation Centre of this Court, the wife lodged the present FIR against the petitioner and also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The se- Criminal Misc.-M No. 20052 of 2011 2 quence of events shows that the allegations made in the FIR are totally false. The petitioner is still ready and willing to settle the dispute with the complainant.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation. He has handed over gold articles weighing about 115 grams to the Investigating Officer. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Nasib Singh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. Interim bail granted to the petitioner on 07.07.2011, is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 27.09.2011 sharmila