Crl. Misc. No.M-19371 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-19371 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 25, 2011 Manjit Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.D.K. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr.G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is mother-in-law of complainant Mandeep Kaur who has allegedly been maltreated and her dowry articles have allegedly been misappropriated. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and her son are residents of Sweden and that the complainant being not satisfied Crl. Misc. No.M-19371 of 2011 [2] with the professional status of the son of the petitioner has refused to join her husband in Sweden despite the fact that all attempts were made by the petitioner and her son to get Visa for the complainant. It has also been submitted that no dowry articles were ever given to the petitioner or her son. On the other hand, State counsel has submitted that the list of the articles which form part of the police record are yet to be recovered. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon a passport receipt indicating that the Visa of the complainant has been with-held for indefinite period. It has also transpired during the course of arguments that the son of the petitioner has already filed an application for divorce in Sweden. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is complainant who is not interested to stay with the son of the petitioner but with an oblique motive to receive money from the petitioner and her son, a false case has been registered against the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the complainant as well as State counsel and gone through the police record. Since the petitioner’s son has already filed a petition for divorce at Sweden, chances of any amicable settlement are remote. So far as petitioner is concerned, though she has joined investigation but recoveries are yet to be effected. I have considered the contention of the petitioner that the list of dowry articles has been exaggerated but I do not find any force in the said contention. I cannot be believed at this stage that merely to receive cash from the petitioner and her son, the complainant has falsely registered the case against the petitioner under Sections 406, 498 A IPC. In view of the Crl. Misc. No.M-19371 of 2011 [3] conduct of the son of the petitioner of having married the complainant and thereafter filed an application for divorce without making a sincere attempt to take steps for immigration of the complainant, it does not appear to be a case of extraordinary nature where the concession of pre-arrest bail should be granted. Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail. August 25, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE