JUDGMENT 1. - This order will decide an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 148 of 1987 filed by Bhawani Singh, Hanuman Singh and Snit. Amarkunwar under section 482 Cr.P.C. and also two connected bail applications Nos. 440 of 1987 and 358 of 1987 filed respectively by Bhawani Singh and his parents Hultman Singh and Smt. Amar Kanwar. 2. The matter consists of the alleged criminal breach of trust committed by the three petitioners, of the dowry given by Samunder Blurts before and at the time of the marriage of his daughter Anita with Bhawani Singh on May 20, 1986. The unfortunate young girl Anita died on June 24, 1986 just one month and 4 days after her marriage in the house of her in-laws. It was not disputed that another criminal case under section 306 IPC is pending against Hanuman Singh and Smt. Amarkanwar. A criminal complaint for the offence under section 406 IPC and section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to 'the DP Act') was presented by Samunder Singh in the court of Judicial Magistrate. Chirava on April 22, 1987. The, criminal complaint was sent by the Judicial Magistrate, Chirava to the Station House Officer Police Station, Surajgarh for investigation and the investigation is in progress. 3. By criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 148 of 1987, the above named three petitioners have prayed that the complaint lodged by Samunder Singh and the first information report No. 32 dated April 22, 1987 registered by the police in pursuance thereof and further investigation in consequence thereto be quashed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners no offence under section 406 IPC is prima facie made out or the reason that Anita has died and under sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with section 6 of the DP Act, the husband is heir of Anita deceased and in him the alleged dowry has vested on the death of Anita. In my opinion, the matter cannot end there. Even the demand and taking of dowry are offences under sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. In my opinion, the matter cannot end there. Even the demand and taking of dowry are offences under sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. These offences under DP Act are cognizable offences by virtue of s 8 of the DP Act, In such circumstances, no interference is called for by this Court in the investigation that is being carried on by the Investigating Officer attached to Police Station, Surajgarh. The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed, 4. Coming to the two bail applications, it may be mentioned that they are applications under section 438 Cr.P.C. fOr anticipatory bail. The police may have to recover the articles alleged to have been taken in dowry by the petitioners. It would handicap the police in the recovery in case anticipatory bail is granted to any of the petitioners. 5. I am not inclined to grant the application for anticipatory bail to-any of the three "petitioners. 6. Consequently. S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail. Applications Nos. 440 and 558 of 1987. are also dismissed. 7. As a consequence of the above order, S.S. Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 88 of 1987 filed in relation to S.B. Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 148 of 1987 becomes infructuous and the order passed by this Court on 8th June, 1987 is vacated.Application dismissed. *******