Criminal Misc.-M No. 30196 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 30196 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.11.2011 Navdeep Kaur and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. G. K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. P. K. Kataria, Advocate for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are daughter-in-law of the complainant, mother and brother of petitioner No. 1 respectively. The allegations in the FIR got registered by the mother of husband of petitioner No. 1 is that she had solemnised marriage with her son on 5.8.2007. Both of them had gone to Australia. After coming back, without getting divorce, she contracted second marriage with Simranjeet Singh. The alleged offences are under Sections 420/494/497 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that offences under Sections 494/497 IPC are non-cognizable and bailable. In the facts of the present case, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out, as there is no cheating. She further submitted that the complaint could not be lodged by any one else than the husband/wife for matrimonial offences under Sections 494/497 IPC. In the present case, the complainant is mother of the husband of petitioner No. 1. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that offence under Section 420 IPC is made out as before petitioner No. 1 came from Australia, she was handed over 5,000 Criminal Misc.-M No. 30196 of 2011 [2] dollars for her maintenance. It is further submitted that husband of petitioner No. 1 is still living in Australia. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that offences under Sections 494/497 IPC are non-cognizable and further to invoke Section 420 IPC, it is alleged that 5,000 dollars were given to petitioner No. 1 when she came back from Australia and presently there is nothing to show anything regarding handing over of that amount to petitioner No. 1, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody. They are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 18.11.2011 at 10.00 AM for joining investigation. In case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.11.2011 mk