IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-18869 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 3rd June, 2011. Krishan Gopal Petitioner through Mr. R.K.Handa, Advocate Versus State of Punjab Respondent through Mr. V.P.S.Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. V.K.Thakur, Advocate, for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 56 dated 24.06.2010, under Sections 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station, Hariana, District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner is husband and the FIR has been got registered by his wife – Maninder Kaur, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner who is a NRI and is settled in USA, is harassing her on account of dowry and committed cruelty and turned her out of the matrimonial home. The FIR mentions the details of the jewellery and other valuable items given as dowry articles besides spending ` 2 lacs by the parents of the complainant on the marriage ceremonies. However, it is alleged that soon after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members started harassing the complainant for not bringing dowry as per their status knowing fully well that they are NRIs and settled in USA. A specific demand for the Car was also made. It is also alleged that the petitioner while under the influence of liquor has been causing merciless beating to the complainant. There is also a specific allegation that the petitioner is having illicit relations with one Jaswinder Kaur and has been insulting and humiliating the complainant in the presence of the said lady who frequently visits the house of the petitioner. The FIR also mentions several other instances in order to make out a case under Section 406/498-A IPC. The record reveals that both the parties were called to find out an amicable settlement to the unfortunate matrimonial dispute. The matter was sent to the Permanent Lok Adalat of the High Court but the matter could not be resolved. It appears that the petitioner agreed to pay a lump-sum amount of ` 20 lacs to the complainant and they agreed to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. However, later on the petitioner backed out and refused to pay any amount. The complainant - wife appears in person and explains that on account of illicit relations maintained by the petitioner, it is too difficult for her to live with him. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has denied the allegations, however, from the frequent changing stand of the petitioner, it does appear that he is not sincere to the marital ties nor wants an amicable solution to the unfortunate matrimonial discord. No case to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail is made out. Dismissed. June 03, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE