Criminal Misc. No. M-25624 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25624 of 2011 Date of decision : December 06, 2011 Ranjeet Kaur ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Anil Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent no. 1 and 2 None for respondent nos. 3 & 4 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Complainant Ranjeet Kaur has filed this petition under section 439(2) read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents no. 3 and 4 Jaspal Singh and his wife Amarjit Kaur by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 1.8.2011, Annexure P/3 in FIR No. 185 dated 16.7.2011, under sections 323, 406, 504, 498-A IPC, Police Station Mullana, District Ambala. Criminal Misc. No. M-25624 of 2011 -2- Pursuant to orders of the preceding date, complainant – petitioner is present in person. However, complainant's husband Gurmeet Singh non-petitioner is not present. None has either appeared on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 4 although the case has been passed over twice. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and perused the case file. It has come in reply filed on behalf of State that complainant's husband Gurmeet Singh disclosed during investigation that remaining dowry articles are with his parents i.e. respondents no. 3 and 4 who are parents-in-law of the complainant-petitioner. However, respondents no. 3 and 4, when they joined investigation pursuant to interim order of the Sessions Court, stated that no dowry article was in their possession and their son might have sold the dowry articles. It is, thus, manifest that respondents no. 3 and 4 and their son have taken contradictory stands during the investigation. Remaining dowry articles are yet to be recovered. Respondents no. 3 and 4 are also not interested in amicable settlement in the case as none is appearing for them in spite of directions. The petitioner has turned up in person today and also appeared in person on 12.10.2011 but neither respondents no. 3 and 4 nor their son appeared in person. Since dowry articles have to be recovered from respondents no. 3 and 4 and the said articles were stated to be in possession of respondents no. 3 and 4 by their own son during investigation, the instant petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/3 granting anticipatory bail to Criminal Misc. No. M-25624 of 2011 -3- respondents no. 3 and 4 is quashed and set aside. Prayer of respondents no. 3 and 4 for anticipatory bail made before the Sessions Court is declined. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 06, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'