JUDGMENT Gurdev Singh, J.:- Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by Navpreet Kaur, petitioner, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of direction to the official respondents to take action in accordance with law on the representations dated 22.12.2009 and 24.12.2009, submitted by her against respondents No. 4 to 6. She has contended therein that the said respondents had taken various dowry articles on account of her engagement and expenses were incurred in Ring Ceremony and still they married their son elsewhere and usurped all the dowry articles. She moved the above said representations before the official respondents, but no action was taken. 3. In the reply submitted by the official respondents, it has been submitted that such representations were made and enquiry was conducted, in which the statement of both the parties were recorded and thereafter they were advised to seek their remedy from the Court. 4. It is very much apparent from the representations, so made by the petitioner, that the gifts were given in consideration of alliance of marriage, which never matured. Therefore, at the most it can be said to be a case of breach of promise by the respondents to perform the marriage. The official respondents were only required to conduct the investigation and after the investigation they were not bound to register the FIR if no cognizable offence was made out. In case the petitioner is not satisfied with the findings recorded during the enquiry, his remedy is to file a private complaint before the Magistrate. Petition is disposed of with the above observations. ------------