Crl. Misc. No.M-25501 of 2008 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Crl. Misc. No.M-25501 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 02.07.2009 **** Yashvinderjit Gupta . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.A.D.S. Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. Mr.J.S. Chahal, Advocate for the complainant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.179 dated 21.8.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala. At the time of notice of motion dated 22.9.2008 to the A.G. Punjab, arrest of the petitioner was stayed. On 27.11.2008, following order was passed: “Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the concerned police official, has represented that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 1.10.2008, the petitioner has joined Crl. Misc. No.M-25501 of 2008 - 2 - the investigation and is no more required for this purpose. However, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that dowry articles are still lying with the petitioner and the same have not been returned and, as such, the concession of anticipatory bail be not extended to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was / is ready to handover each and every article of dowry lying with him to the complainant, but it was the complainant who refused to accept the same. In this situation, when the investigation has been joined by the petitioner, he is fully co-operating with the investigating agency and is no more required for investigation purposes as disclosed by the State counsel, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 1.10.2008 is made absolute. In reply to a query by this Court, learned counsel representing the complainant has even requested that the fact regarding demand and acceptance of dowry and giving of dowry be got probed from the police and if the parties are found guilty, they should be suitably punished. In this case, the factum of demand and acceptance of dowry and giving of dowry is amply clear as per contentions put forth by the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the complainant. Crl. Misc. No.M-25501 of 2008 - 3 - The object of introducing the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was to avoid the evil practice of giving and taking of dowry. As there was clear violation of the provision of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in the instant case, as noticed above, the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station is directed to investigate the matter thoroughly and if he finds violations of the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, register case under the relevant provisions of the Act. Further progress in the case be intimated to this Court by the next date of hearing. To come up on 8.1.2009” Pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2008, Inspector Pritpal Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala has filed an affidavit dated 21.1.2009, in which he has stated “that I have thoroughly investigated the matter as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court. During my investigation no violation of the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out. Since, the anticipatory bail has already been made absolute and the compliance has been made to the direction given by this Court dated 27.11.2008, nothing has been left out to be decided. In view of the above, the Criminal Misc. Petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JULY 02, 2009 JUDGE vivek