Rajesh Kant And Another vs State Of Punjab on 10 December, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH


                           Crl.Misc.No.M-27432 of 2009

                           Date of decision : 10.12.2009


Rajesh Kant and another

                                              ....Petitioners
              Versus


State of Punjab

                                              ...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
                  ....

Present:    Ms.Promila Nain, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab
            for the respondent.

            Mr.Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate
            for the complainant.
                          ....

MAHESH GROVER, J.

This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for release of the petitioners in terms thereof in a

case registered vide FIR No.60 dated 1.6.2009 under Sections 307,

406, 420, 498-A, 506, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Division No.8,

Ludhiana.

The petitioners, who are the parents-in-law of the

complainant, have stated that they are residing separately at Kharar

and they have nothing to do with the marital affairs of their son who

is residing at Ludhiana.

Noticing the aforesaid contention, this court on 25.9.2009
Crl.Misc.No.M-27432 of 2009 -2-

had granted interim protection to the petitioners subject to the

condition that they comply with the provisions of Section 438(2)

Cr.P.C.

It has now been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioners and not controverted by the learned counsel appearing for

the State of Punjab that the petitioners have since joined the

investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand,

contended that the petitioners have duped the complainant and have

sold the property which belonged to the husband of the complainant

and have misappropriated the proceeds thereof. Learned counsel for

the petitioners then referred to the sale deed in which the participation

of the complainant herself is reflected. He further stated that the

amount was paid by way of cheques and therefore the question of

misappropriation does not arise.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

perusing the material on record, I am satisfied that the petitioners

having joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating

Officer deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the

interim directions dated 25.9.2009 are hereby made absolute till the

filing of the challan subject to the condition that the petitioners

continue to comply with the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

10.12.2009                                   (MAHESH GROVER)
                                                JUDGE
dss