Cr.Misc. M 6777 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 6777 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.8.2010 Kirpal Singh and others Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Ms. Shushma Chopra, Advocate. Mr. PS Bajwa, DAG, Punjab Mr. JS Bedi, Advocate for complainant. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Petitioners 1 and 2 are parents of petitioner No.3. They seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in an FIR, registered at the instance of Harnek Singh alleging that the petitioners along with other family members performed a ring ceremony of petitioner No.3 Prabjot Singh with Harneet Kaur, adopted daughter of the complainant on 24.8.2005, in which a gold chain of three tolas, diamond ring and golden rings were given to the petitioners and their relatives besides giving tops and other valuable sweets and gifts by spending a sum of ` 8.00 lacs. After the betrothal ceremony, petitioner No.3 along with his family members went to Italy. Thereafter, the petitioners and their family members, being NRIs, started raising demand of money. The complainant paid heavy amount to the petitioners. The marriage was fixed for 10.6.2009. Invitation cards were distributed. After fixing the date of marriage, a sum of ` 25 lacs was demanded on 8.5.2009. On failure of the complainant to pay the huge Cr.Misc. M 6777 of 2010 2 amount of ` 25 lacs, marriage ceremony was not performed. Learned counsel for the petitioners Ms. Shushma Chopra, Advocate has contended that even if, the allegations in the FIR are believed to be correct, no offence is made out against the petitioners as the articles given were gifts items and no offence u/s 406 IPC is made out in case of handing over of the gifts items as the gifts are not the property given in entrust. The FIR was registered on 4.8.2009. The cognizance cannot be taken after the expiry of the limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. Taking of cognizance of offence u/s 406 IPC is barred by time. Neither there is contract of marriage nor any inducement. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant have argued that the petitioners are habitual of committing the similar offence. Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate , counsel for the complainant submitted that grand father of petitioner No.3 and the petitioners 1 and 2 have earlier also indulged in similar criminal activities by entering into matrimonial alliance with the girls from India and thereafter duping the families of the girls by receiving money in the name of gifts on the similar ceremonies. Reference has been made to an FIR No. 474 of 2002, which was registered against petitioner No.1 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi for cheating by travelling on fabricated air tickets and passort. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioner No.3 is a minor and cannot enter into an agreement of marriage. Agreement, if any, will be a nullity. I have heard arguments and taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case and I am of the opinion that the petitioners, taking the advantage of their status as NRI and being residents Cr.Misc. M 6777 of 2010 3 of Italy have duped innocent complainant and exploited his daughter with a false promise. After having fraudulently entered into alliance of marriage, the petitioners broke the marriage only because the complainant was not able to meet the heavy demand of dowry raised by the petitioners. Grant of pre-arrest bail to the persons like petitioners will tantamount to perpetuating to illegality and fraud. No extra-ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Dismissed. August 13 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE