IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25632 of 2009 Date of decision : September 24, 2009 Hari Chand Gandhi and another ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. DPS Kahlon, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab with Mr. PS Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Hari Chand Gandhi and his wife Saroj Gandhi have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 146 dated 25.8.2009 under sections 498-A, 406, 377, 506 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant. Marriage of the complainant with son of the petitioners took place on 10.4.2008. Complainant could stay in the matrimonial home till 24.5.2008 only, for 34 days during the said period. There are allegations that younger Criminal Misc. No. M-25632 of 2009 -2- brother of the husband of the complainant even made advances towards the complainant and used such filthy language which cannot be spelt. When the complainant told the petitioners about it, the complainant was humiliated. The complainant was once talking to her parents on telephone when petitioner no. 2 and her son, husband of the complainant had snatched the telephone. The husband even thrashed the complainant. The petitioners and their co-accused also raised demand of dowry and car. A sum of Rs 50,000/- was even paid by the complainant's father but the petitioners were not satisfied. The complainant was forcibly turned out of the matrimonial home on 24.5.2008. Efforts to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home failed. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that entire family has been implicated and the petitioners are ready to join investigation. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the complainant gave complaint on 30.3.2009 although FIR was registered on 25.8.2009. The petitioners have relied on petition, Annexure P/1, filed by their son for restitution of conjugal rights against the complainant. However, said petition is dated 17.4.2009 and it was instituted after the complainant had already submitted complaint to the police. There are serious allegations in the FIR against the petitioners. Dowry articles are also yet to be recovered. Criminal Misc. No. M-25632 of 2009 -3- In view of the aforesaid but without commenting anything on merits, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 24, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'