RANJEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(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.

(3.) 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.