Crl. Misc. No.M-21809 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-21809 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 8, 2011 Davinder Mehra and another …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Saurabh Khurana, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of Neha wife of Sahil Mehra. The petitioners have been involved in the case on the basis of the compliant of Neha that she had been maltreated and harassed on the pretext of dowry by her husband and all his friends and relatives. There are allegations that though enough cash and dowry articles were given but her Crl. Misc. No.M-21809 of 2011 [2] husband had raised a demand of Car. She was turned out of the house after giving her beatings. Her all gold ornaments were kept in custody. On demand, she had been handed over artificial jewellery. Whenever she demanded the gold ornaments she was abused. The petitioners and Sahil Mehra, her husband levelled allegations against the character of complainant- Neha. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that Sahil Mehra has filed a divorce petition against his wife Neha alleging that she was living an adulterous life with one Paras who has been impleaded as respondent No.2. The said person had allegedly been visiting the house of the petitioners. She had been caught red handed with her paramour. A divorce petition on the ground of adultery is pending in the Court of District Judge, Amritsar. The complaint filed by the complainant is nothing but a counter-blast to the divorce petition. It has been argued that pursuant to the interim orders, the petitioners have joined investigation. But the state counsel and the counsel for the complainant has submitted that no recoveries have been effected. After going through the facts and circumstances of this case, it is apparent that the son of the petitioners and the petitioners have not only left the complainant alongwith the minor child in lurch but have also levelled allegations against her character. The allegations of adultery are yet to be established. It is not only the son of the petitioners but the petitioner who are also indulged in mud-slinging against the complainant. Crl. Misc. No.M-21809 of 2011 [3] The gold ornaments of the complainant are also stated to have been with- held by the petitioners. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, no extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Dismissed. This order will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioners to seek concession of regular bail by surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate or the investigating officer. August 8, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE