Criminal Misc. No. M-27218 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-27218 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.9.2009 Gurdeep Singh Cheema .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 8.6.2009. FIR in the present case was registered on account of a matrimonial dispute. It is a case where both husband and wife, who are the main parties to the dispute, are residing in Canada. In fact, they had left for Canada immediately after the marriage on 21.1.2008. Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein are father and mother of the husband. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 deserves to be cancelled because recovery is yet to be effected has no legs to stand. He has not been able to point out any valid ground on the basis of which the anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 could be cancelled. He has not pointed out any instance where respondents No. 2 and 3 had ever misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted to them or have not joined the investigation. Complainant-Rupinder Kaur is citizen of Canada and is residing there. Initially, complaint was made to the police. The matter was investigated and it was found that no offence was made out against respondents No. 2 and 3. Subsequently, complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. was filed in the court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered. It is a case where the complainant and her husband resided in Canada after their marriage. The FIR was got registered in India because of certain differences between the couple. As learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any ground on the basis of which the anticipatory bail granted to Criminal Misc. No. M-27218 of 2009 [2] respondents No. 2 and 3 could be cancelled, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.9.2009 mk