Judgment Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). 1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioners on bail in FIR No.158/2012, dated 07.07.2012, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Chamba, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323, 34 IPC. 2. It has been stated that petitioner No.1 is 79 years old and suffering from various ailments. The petitioner No.2 is 72 years old and she is also suffering from heart ailment. Petitioner No.3 is an Advocate. Petitioner No.4 is wife of petitioner No.3. Petitioner No.5 is a law student at Punjab University and is son of petitioner No.3. The complainant in order to exert pressure and in retaliation to FIR No.192 dated 22.06.2011 registered at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh, has lodged above FIR at Police Station, Chamba, against petitioners leveling false and frivolous allegations. 3. The complainant has lodged the case against petitioners giving it a shape of matrimonial dispute after four years of death of Nitin Saini, late husband of complainant, who unfortunately died in an accident on 26.11.2008. Nitin Saini was the son of petitioners 1 and 2. Petitioners 4 and 5 are wife and son of petitioner No.3, they were living separately, they shifted to present accommodation i.e. Ground Floor House No.1450, Sector 22 B, Chandigarh, after the death of Nitin Saini. The complainant was living with her husband in the top floor of House No. 1450, Sector 22B, Chandigarh, with separate kitchen during the lifetime of Nitin Saini. 4. The complainant got employment in Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High Court as Computer Operator after the death of Nitin Saini. The complainant had no dispute with anyone during the lifetime of Nitin Saini. After the death of Nitin Saini, the complainant and her parents started demanding share in the self-acquired property of petitioners. They also started demanding huge cash to settle down complainant by marrying her to another person. The petitioners 1, 2 had shown their inability to pay hefty amount to the complainant. On the demand of complainant, articles of late Nitin Saini and complainant were handed over to complainant on 16.05.2009. 5. The complainant started committing various acts of omissions and commissions after the death of Nitin Saini. The complainant tried to grab the entire property of the petitioners. On the demand of complainant, articles of late Nitin Saini and complainant were handed over to complainant on 16.05.2009. 5. The complainant started committing various acts of omissions and commissions after the death of Nitin Saini. The complainant tried to grab the entire property of the petitioners. A criminal complaint was filed by petitioners 1 and 2 and the Court on the basis of complaint directed Chandigarh police to register a case and thereupon FIR No.192 dated 22.06.2011 has been registered at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh, under Sections 406, 418, 420, 423, 426, 448 IPC against complainant. The complainant filed a petition for quashing FIR No.192 dated 22.06.2011 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.03.2012 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On completion of investigation, challan has been presented in the Court and the case is fixed for consideration of charge. 6. The complainant has withdrawn his son from Chandigarh school and now the boy has been admitted in Chamba school. The complainant kept on serving Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High Court till 15.06.2012. The complainant in order to harass the petitioners has now filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, against the petitioners. The complainant has also lodged FIR No.158 dated 07.07.2012 at Police Station, Chamba, implicating petitioners for offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 420, 506, 34 IPC. 7. The petitioners are innocent, they have committed no offence. It has been stated that no offence under Sections 406, 498-A, 420 has taken place at Chamba. The false allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in order to make the jurisdiction of Chamba police. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail. 8. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of letter dated 06.07.2012 received from the Office of Additional Superintendent of Police, Chamba, in the Police Station, Chamba. The complainant has stated that marriage of complainant was solemnized on 25.12.2005 with late Nitin Saini at Mohali. A son was born from the wedlock on 23.01.2007, who is residing with complainant. Nitin Saini died on 26.11.2008 at Chandigarh in an accident. The complainant has stated that marriage of complainant was solemnized on 25.12.2005 with late Nitin Saini at Mohali. A son was born from the wedlock on 23.01.2007, who is residing with complainant. Nitin Saini died on 26.11.2008 at Chandigarh in an accident. It has been stated that after the death of Nitin Saini, the accused started pressurizing complainant to get remarried, which was refused by the complainant. The petitioners became aggressive and started threatening the complainant with dire consequences. The petitioners started pressurizing the parents of the complainant to take her back or to get her remarried. The petitioners took into possession all belongings of late husband of the complainant and refused to hand over the ‘shtridhan’. Some jewellery was handed over to complainant after the death of Nitin Saini, which was found artificial, originals are still lying with petitioners. 9. In February, 2009, petitioner No.1 procured signatures of complainant on some papers for filing petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and also for grant of Advocate Welfare Fund from Bar Council as Nitin Saini was a practicing Advocate in District Courts, Chandigarh. The complainant came to know that petitioner No.1 got released the entire payment of Bar Council fund from Bar Council in his name and no claim petition was filed till date. The matter was reported to the Bar Council and thereafter the money was released in favour of complainant in the year 2012. The petitioners have filed false case against complainant. The petitioners 3 and 5 on number of occasions chased the complainant in streets and had given threats to do away with her life. The petitioners had beaten complainant badly on several occasions and also maltreated minor child, who is in deep mental shock. The petitioners tried to defame the complainant by leveling false allegations regarding her character. 10. On 12.06.2012, petitioners 1 to 5 again started manhandling the complainant and tried to dispossess the complainant from her house. The complainant in order to save her life came to Chamba and is living with her parents. The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 came to Chamba on 24.06.2012 to the house of parents of complainant. They were requested to allow the complainant to live at Chandigarh and not to harass her. They all became aggressive and started beating her to cause injury. The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 came to Chamba on 24.06.2012 to the house of parents of complainant. They were requested to allow the complainant to live at Chandigarh and not to harass her. They all became aggressive and started beating her to cause injury. The petitioners 1 and 3 further criminally intimidated the complainant to do away with her life. They refused to hand over ‘shtridhan’ of the complainant. On this, the case has been registered. 11. It has come in the investigation that after the marriage the complainant was residing with her husband and in-laws in House No.1450, Sector 22B, Chandigarh. The brother-in-law of the complainant was residing separately. After the death of husband of complainant, elder brother of late husband of complainant started living with his parents in the same house in the Ground Floor. The petitioners even started torturing complainant on small matters. The complainant ultimately left Chandigarh and came to Chamba along with her son and is living with her parents. Some articles were returned to complainant, but only one chain was found genuine and rest of the jewellery was found gold plated artificial. ‘Shtridhan’ of complainant is still with the petitioners. It has been stated that petitioners joined the investigation, but they are not giving ‘shtridhan’ to the complainant. They are concealing true facts. They are not co-operating with the Investigating Agency, rather they are misleading. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application. 12. Heard and perused the record. It has come on record that parents of complainant are from Chamba. The complainant was got married with Nitin Saini in the year 2005 and complainant gave birth to one son. Nitin Saini was an Advocate. He died in road accident. The relations of complainant with her in-laws got strained after the death of Nitin Saini. There are allegations and counter-allegations. According to the complainant, her in-laws want her second marriage, they have also selected some boy. The complainant is not willing for second marriage. The complainant has alleged that petitioners had tried to misappropriate welfare fund amount given by Punjab and Haryana Bar Council on account of death of Nitin Saini. The allegation is that petitioners are threatening the complainant to do away with her life. They have not returned her ‘shtridhan’. The complainant is not willing for second marriage. The complainant has alleged that petitioners had tried to misappropriate welfare fund amount given by Punjab and Haryana Bar Council on account of death of Nitin Saini. The allegation is that petitioners are threatening the complainant to do away with her life. They have not returned her ‘shtridhan’. Only one gold chain was returned and rest of the jewellery returned to the complainant in lieu of ‘shtridhan’ was found to be fake. The petitioners 1,3 and 4 came to Chamba and threatened the complainant. The illegal acts of petitioners have caused adverse impact on the son of the complainant. 13. On the other hand, petitioners have taken stand that after the death of Nitin Saini, the act and conduct of complainant towards petitioners is quarrelsome, aggressive and non-cooperative. The petitioners tried to help complainant and her minor son. The complainant was got employed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar as Computer Operator so as to help her financially. The complainant created nuisance for the petitioners and an FIR No.192 dated 22.06.2011 has been registered against the complainant. She filed a petition for quashing of said FIR in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn. Now the case is fixed for consideration of charge. The petitioners 1 and 2 are old and suffering from ailments. They are not in a position to behave in the manner as alleged by the complainant. The complainant in order to make jurisdiction of Chamba police has lodged a false complaint without any basis at Chamba. The articles of Nitin Saini and complainant were returned to her. The petitioners have prayed for granting bail, whereas, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. 14. It has come on record that FIR No.192 dated 22.06.2011 is registered against complainant at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh and the matter is pending in the Court. In the status report, it has been stated that petitioners 1,3 and 4 came to Chamba on 24.06.2012. In other words, petitioners 2 and 5 had not come to Chamba on 24.06.2012, but still they have been arrayed as accused in the FIR. In the status report, it has been stated that ‘shtridhan’ of the complainant is to be recovered from the petitioners and they are not co-operating in the investigation regarding the ‘shtridhan’. In other words, petitioners 2 and 5 had not come to Chamba on 24.06.2012, but still they have been arrayed as accused in the FIR. In the status report, it has been stated that ‘shtridhan’ of the complainant is to be recovered from the petitioners and they are not co-operating in the investigation regarding the ‘shtridhan’. The petitioners have placed on record copy of receipt dated 16.05.2009 indicating that complainant on that date received belongings of her late husband Nitin Saini along with ‘shtridhan’, etc. from her in-laws. The jewellery and articles are mentioned in the receipt. There is nothing on record that within reasonable time after 16.05.2009 complainant disputed the ‘shtridhan’ received by her on 16.05.2009. Now in the complaint, she has alleged that except one chain, the other articles returned to her were fake or duplicate. There is nothing on record that at the time of receipt of ‘shtridhan’ and other articles on 16.05.2009, the complainant took the stand that some ‘shtridhan’ was still with her in-laws. The Investigating Agency except ‘shtridhan’ has not stated anything against the petitioners. It has come in the status report that petitioners have joined the investigation. The petitioner No.1 is aged 79 years and petitioner No.2 is aged 72 years. It has not been stated that petitioners will not be available for trial in case they are released on bail. The Investigating Agency has not shown apprehension that in the event of bail, the petitioners will influence the prosecution witnesses. In view of allegations and counter-allegations and material on record, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 15. In view of above, the application is allowed. The petitioners in the event of arrest in FIR No. 158/2012, dated 07.07.2012, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Chamba, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323, 34 IPC, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `50,000/-each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that the petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The petitioners shall not overawe or terrorize any prosecution witness and shall maintain absolute peaceful and lawful conduct. The petitioners shall not overawe or terrorize any prosecution witness and shall maintain absolute peaceful and lawful conduct. The petitioners No.2 and 4 are women, they shall be interrogated strictly in accordance with law. The petitioners shall not leave the country without the permission of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, during the pendency of investigation and without the permission of learned trial Court after filing of challan. 16. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.