Crl.Misc No M- 22539 of 2010 Ani Lakshmanan v. State of Punjab Present: Mr.Kamal Grover and Mr.Koommen, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for complainant. *** ORDER Crl.Misc.No.58185 of 2010 is for impleading the complainant as respondent No.2. Application is allowed and complainant Jube Bose is impleaded as respondent No.2. Crl.Misc No M- 22539 of 2010 The present petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of petitioner Ani Lakshmanan in case FIR No.84 dated 9.3.3010 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Notice of motion was issued on 6th August, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case and there is no specific allegation against him. Even from bare perusal of contents of the FIR, no case is made out under Sections 406/498-A IPC. The FIR has been registered on the basis of complaint prepared by some expert. Neither any specific demand was raised out nor it has been mentioned that dowry articles were entrusted to the accused. Learned counsel further submits that there is nothing on the record to show that any grievance was there to the complainant as no complaint was made for about two years and only on receipt of legal Crl.Misc No M- 22539 of 2010 [2] notice for restitution of conjugal rights, the present FIR has been registered. Learned counsel also submits that the complainant remained with the petitioner for about two weeks and thereafter she remained with her parents. No specific date and time has been mentioned in the FIR with regard to demand of dowry or any cruelty towards the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said FIR has been registered at Police Station, Mohali whereas as per Section 177 Cr.P.C. an offence is ordinarily to be enquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it has been committed. The petitioner belongs to Thane ( in Maharashtra State) and marriage of petitioner with complainant was solemnized at Kerala and after marriage the complainant never stayed with the petitioner till 20th September,2008 and stayed with her parents and no dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioner at Mohali. Mr.Vishal Munjal, learned Addl. A.G. Punjab opposes the bail on the ground that although the petitioner had joined the investigation but he did not co-operate with the investigation nor any recovery of dowry articles was effected. Learned counsel for the State also relies upon the judgment in Shiv Dayal Arora v. Renu Arora 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 10 in support of his contention. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file. As per contention made by learned counsel for the Crl.Misc No M- 22539 of 2010 [3] petitioner that the FIR has been registered on 9th march, 2010 which was a counter-blast to the legal notice sent by the petitioner. Vide order dated 28th September, 2010, the petitioner was directed to join investigation and was also directed to be released on interim anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer on joining investigation but spite of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner did not co-operate with the investigation as is clear from the order dated 9th November, 2010. Learned counsel for the State has also brought to the notice of the Court that although the petitioner again joined investigation but did not co-operate with the investigation and no recovery of dowry articles could be effected from him. The petitioner was again granted one more opportunity to join investigation on 9th November, 2010 and case was adjourned to 16th December, 2010. Today also, the learned counsel for the State has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has still not co-operated with the investigation and recovery of a single dowry article could not be effected from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that nothing was paid to the petitioner at the time of marriage and moreover, there is nothing on the record to show that dowry articles were given at the time of marriage or not, and it is also to be proved by way of evidence whether her parents were in a position to give such dowry articles as projected in the said FIR and proceedings for bail cannot be converted into recovery proceedings. Learned Crl.Misc No M- 22539 of 2010 [4] counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Surjit Kaur Chopra v. State and another 2008(1) HLR 104 in support of his contention. As per case of the prosecution, the marriage took place at Kerala but reception ceremony was held at Mohali and huge amount in the form of gold ornaments weighing 502 grams 650 milligrams along with other articles were given to the petitioner as streedhana and approximately an amount of `15,43,708/- was spent by the father of the complainant. An amount of `5,00,000/- was given as cash to the petitioner as well as to his parents. Complainant was given all type of harassment, humiliation, beating by the accused persons and she was turned out of her matrimonial house. The petitioner was granted several opportunities to co- operate with the investigation but in spite of that, he did not co- operate with the investigation and no recovery of dowry articles was effected from him. In view of the facts mentioned above that in-spite of giving ample opportunities, the petitioner did not co-operate with the investigation since recovery of dowry articles could not be effected from the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. It has been held in many judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as various High Courts that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of extra-ordinary character and that should be exercised only in exceptional cases. Moreover, limitations have been imposed Crl.Misc No M- 22539 of 2010 [5] in Section 437 Cr.P.C. that petitioner must make out a special case for exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) December 16, 2010 JUDGE raghav