Criminal Misc.-M No. 25023 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 25023 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.11.2011 Vijay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S. Teji, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. …… RAJESH BINDAL, J. While issuing notice of motion on 26.08.2011, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant in the present case is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She had, in fact, never stayed with the petitioner. He referred to document, Annexure P-1, where the complainant is shown to be wife of Balvir Singh. In a complaint to the police (Annexure P-2) also, it is al- leged that she is wife of Balvir Singh. She even filed Crimi- nal Writ Petition No. 896 of 2009 Kulwinder Kaur vs Su- perintendent of Police, Bhiwani and others in this court claiming that the petitioner is her husband had allegedly been kidnapped by his parents. However, finding that the petitioner was not found in the illegal custody of his par- ents, the petition was disposed of with a direction to Senior Superintendent of Police Bhiwani, to consider the repre- sentation of the complainant. FIR No. 175 dated 21.5.2010 got registered by the complainant herein with Police Sta- tion Tosham, District Bhiwani, under Sections 365/34 IPC, for alleged kidnapping of the petitioner, claiming him to be her husband against the parents of the petitioner. In the aforesaid case, the parents of the petitioner were dis- Criminal Misc.-M No. 25023 of 2011 2 charged as the allegations made by the present complain- ant therein were found to be false. Now the claim made in the complaint to the police is that the complainant had sol- emnised court marriage with the petitioner whereas there is no evidence in support thereof.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has already joined investigation. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Bhagwan Das, submitted that though the petitioner has joined investigation, however, recovery of dowry articles is yet to be made. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner where on the basis of certain documents annexed with the petition, the petitioner has shown that the complainant is claiming to be wife of some other person, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. Accordingly, interim bail granted to the petitioner on 26.08.2011, is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 30.11.2011 sharmila