Crl.Misc No M- 12028 of 2010 Varinder Singh Dhingra Vs. State of Punjab PRESENT: Mr.R.K.Girdhar,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G.Punjab Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant. *** The present application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 49 dated 13.4.2010 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station City South, Moga. While issuing notice of motion on 27.4.2010, the following contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was noted down: “ Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter can be compromised between the parties and the present petitioner is ready to return the dowry articles and if the matter is amicably settled, he is ready to withdraw the complaint filed by him.” During the pendency of the present petition efforts were made to settle the matter with the help of learned counsel for the parties but no result with regard to settlement between the parties became fruitful. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has joined the investigation but recovery could not be effected as nothing was given at the time of marriage and even an amount of Rs.4 lacs was given by the petitioner to his in-laws for the purpose of starting some business at Moga and that amount has not been returned so far. Crl.Misc No M- 12028 of 2010 [2] Mr.G.S.Sandhu, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the allegation of Rs.4 lacs has falsely been levelled against the complainant just to create defence whereas there was no occasion for the petitioner to give that amount to the parents of the complainant as nothing was there to start any business at any point of time. The petitioner has not returned the dowry articles and gold jewellery as well as certificates of the complainant. Mr.Munjal, learned counsel for the State submits that although the petitioner has joined the investigation but recovery of the dowry articles including gold jewellery, certificates and other articles i.e. clothes etc. have not been effected from him and he had not co-operated with the investigation. Since the petitioner has neither returned the dowry articles nor co-operated with the investigation and only on the basis of wrong statement made at the time of issuing notice of motion that he is ready to return the dowry articles, he got the interim bail. Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 01, 2010 JUDGE raghav