CRM-M-32215-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] CRM-M-36658-2011 (O&M) :::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-32215-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:14.12.2011 Kewal Krishan and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents (2) CRM-M-36658-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:14.12.2011 Ankush Jindal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tushant Deep Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-32215-2011 titled as `Kewal Krishan and another Vs. State of Punjab and another' [for short “first petition”] and CRM-M-36658-2011 titled as `Ankush Jindal Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “second petition”] in which all the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.120 dated 11.09.2011, under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC at Police Station City South Moga. The petitioners in the first petition are the parents-in-law of complainant Neha Jindal, whereas the petitioner in the second petition is CRM-M-32215-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] CRM-M-36658-2011 (O&M) :::::::: her husband. At the time of notice of motion in the first petition, the complainant was impleaded as respondent no.2 on the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioners and interim bail was granted. On the adjourned date, the complainant had submitted that she is ready to finally settle the matter for an amount of `3,50,000/- but counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners are not in a position to pay the said amount. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Ankush Jindal (petitioner in the second petition) on 10.08.2008 but she left the matrimonial home on 05.03.2009. Ankush Jindal had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short “the Act”] in which the complainant had filed an application under Section 24 of the Act. Vide its order dated 17.04.2010, the learned Additional District Judge, Moga had directed the husband to pay `3,000/- per month to the complainant as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application subject to adjustment of maintenance, if any granted to the complainant in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and further directed to pay `5,000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant also filed application under Section 28 of the Act for the enforcement of the order dated 17.04.2010 which was allowed. The aforesaid orders were challenged by Ankush Jindal by way of filing CR-5684-2010 which was withdrawn by him on 01.09.2011, but in the said revision petition, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court where it is alleged that the complainant was ready and willing to resume the matrimonial home but had ultimately resiled due to the pressure of her parents. As such, CR-5684-2010 was withdrawn on 01.09.2011 and immediately thereafter, the present FIR was registered on 17.09.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that had the complainant been actually harassed for dowry and her dowry articles were usurped, she would have registered the FIR in the first instance after leaving the matrimonial home but the complainant has been throughout pressurizing the petitioners for the payment of `3.5 lacs. He also submitted that the alleged compromise (Annexure P-4) was also under the pressure of the police. It is submitted that the entire problem CRM-M-32215-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] CRM-M-36658-2011 (O&M) :::::::: is of the higher education of the complainant than her husband which has become the bone of contention of their incompatibility. In reply, learned State Counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the recovery of gold is yet to be effected. However, it is a matter of evidence that what gold ornaments were given to the complainant and whether she had not taken them away with her when she had left the matrimonial home. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by this Court in the first petition is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. In view thereof, the first petition stands disposed of. The petitioner in the second petition (Ankush Jindal) is directed to join the investigation on or before 22.12.2011 and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail by the investigating officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall also abide by the conditionis contained in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, the second petition also stands disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. December 14, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge