IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 35804 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.11.2010 Karanjit Kaur & another ......Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate, for petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG, Haryana. Mr.R.S.Tacoria, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ORDER The present petition has been filed for gant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioners namely, Karanjit Kaur and Jasbir Kaur in case FIR No. 353 dated 6.11.2009 under Sections 323/406/498-A/120-B IPC at Police Station Pehowa, Kurukshetra. Notice of motion was issued on 18th December, 2009 by recording the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that there was a possibility of compromise and therafter arrest of the petitioners was also stayed. Vide order dated 15th January, 2010, the interim order already passed on 6th January, 2010 was made absolute qua petitioner No.2 who is married sister-in-law residing separately and petitioner No.1 was directed to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing. Crl.Misc. No. M- 35804 of 2009 [2] On 15th February, 2010, petitioner No.1 appeared in the Court and submitted that she would make all efforts to be in touch with the husband of the complainant who is also her brother. Efforts to explore possibility of compromise were made in the Court with the help of learned counsel in the presence of the parties. In this case, the husband of the complainant is in abroad and all dowry articles were handed over to petitioner No.1 who is widow sister-in-law of the complainant. Specific allegations are there against petitioner No.1 and she took time to get instructions with regard to coming to India of the brother of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 was given time to join the investigation and to co-operate with the investigation and the case was adjourned on various dates. Although petitioner No.1 had joined the investigation but he did not co-operate with the investigation. A list of dowry articles was supplied to petitioner No.1 and she undertook to return all those articles but in spite of that, the dowry articles were not returned. Vide order dated 9th September, 2010, learned counsel for petitioner No.1 made a statement before the Court that police may visit the house of petitioner No.1 and if dowry articles are found there, that can be taken from the house. She also made a statement that she would make payment of Rs.6,00,000/- for settlement of the dispute and that amount would be in lieu of all dowry articles and the case was adjourned. The Investigating Officer of the case visited the house of petitioner No.1 but no dowry articles were found there. Again she made a statement before the Court on 23rd September, Crl.Misc. No. M- 35804 of 2009 [3] 2010 that she was ready to make payment of Rs.6 lacs for settlement of the dispute and complainant also made a statement in granting bail to petitioner No.1 in case the said amount is paid to her. The case was adjourned to 8th October, 2010 and petitioner No.1 was directed to bring the amount of Rs.6 lacs on the next date of hearing but in spite of seeking time on various dates, petitioner did not make payment of the amount agreed by her. Ultimately, the case came up for hearing on 15th November, 2010 and learned counsel for petitioner No.1 submits that petitioner No.1 has not been able to make payment of the said amount as she had no role being sister-in-law of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that since mother-in-law is not there and being the widow sister-in-law, all arrangement with regard to marriage was made by her only and all dowry articles were handed over to her. The husband of the complainant had left India and settled in abroad and it is only petitioner No.1 from whom recovery of dowry articles could have been effected. Since she has not co-operated with the investigation therefore, no recovery could be effected from her. Specific allegations are there with regard to demand of dowry and harassment and petitioner No.1 is the only person to whom all dowry articles were entrusted. In absence of the husband and other family members from the in-laws side, only petitioner No.1 is responsible. Since she has not co-operated with the investigation in spite of giving opportunities several times, no dowry articles were Crl.Misc. No. M- 35804 of 2009 [4] recovered from her. Moreover, it cannot be a case of false implication, as alleged by the learned counsel for the complainant that there were total four sisters-in-law and only two sisters-in-law were mentioned as accused in the case. Both parents of the husband of the complainant have died and all dowry articles were entrusted to petitioner No.1 as she played the role of mother-in-law. All allegations of cruelty and breach of trust are against her only. The other sister-in-law who is petitioner No.2 in this petition, has already been granted anticipatory bail. Main accused Paramjit Singh is yet to be arrested in the case who is in abroad. Keeping in view the conduct of petitioner No.1 that she has not only backed out from her statement made before the Court but also has not co-operated with the investigation and no recovery of dowry articles could be effected from her. She does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed qua petitioner No.1. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE November 15, 2010. raghav