JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: - Crl.M.No.39568 of 2012 Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and order dated 9.7.2012 dismissing the application for nonprosecution is recalled. Registry is directed to register the application at its original number. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.37148 of 2012 Heard. 2. On the statement of counsel for the petitioner that brother of petitioner is ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home and ready to reconcile the differences, notice was issued to respondent complainant and parties were directed to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and hence to meet expenses of respondent complainant to attend this Court for the purpose of reconciliation, Rs.10,000/- were ordered to be paid to respondent-complainant. Hence, no case for recalling the said order is made out. 3. There is no merit in the present application and the same is hereby dismissed. Crl.M.No.M-7106 of 2012 4. The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.6, dated 12.2.2012, under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 420, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Thana, Women Sonipat, District Sonipat. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. 6. Brief allegations are that marriage of complainant was solemnized with brother of present petitioner. The present petitioneraccused is aged about 40 years and residing with her brother. There are specific allegations that she had been causing beatings alongwith her brother to the complainant on account of dowry and had been pressurizing her to sell property owned by mother of complainant. Two specific instances have been given by complainant when she met the said illegal demands of petitioner and her brother. There are allegations that marriage was as a result of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts by brother of petitioner. Her brother had not disclosed correct age to the complainant. He had also not disclosed correct nature of his job and regarding the fact that present petitioner, i.e., unmarried sister of about 40 years of age, was also residing with him. Her brother had not disclosed correct age to the complainant. He had also not disclosed correct nature of his job and regarding the fact that present petitioner, i.e., unmarried sister of about 40 years of age, was also residing with him. There are specific allegation that present petitioner-accused and her brother tried to strangulate the complainant. Complainant has not impleaded all the family members of petitioner in this case. She has levelled allegations against her husband and present petitioner only. She has not levelled allegations against parents of her husband and petitioner as well as against brother of her husband. 7. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, i.e., her own brother, who is co-accused in this case and a practising Lawyer at Faridabad, that there are vague allegations against the petitioner-accused. He has also contended that jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. He has also placed reliance upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, [2011(2) Law Herald (SC) 1333] : AIR 2011 Supreme Court 312. 8. However, bail application is vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that there are serious allegations against petitioneraccused and that the dowry articles, which as per the complaint, were specifically entrusted to petitioner-accused and some of the articles were also given to petitioner-accused after the marriage as per her demand, are yet to be recovered. It is further contended that she is the main accused and she alongwith her brother had been committing acts of cruelty and harassment upon the complainant. 9. There are serious allegations against petitioner-accused in this case. The marriage was performed on 6.3.2011. Harassment started just after few days of the marriage. Petitioner and her brother started giving beatings to the complainant. On two occasions, Rs.50,000/-, one gold chain and two gold rings were entrusted to petitioner-accused after marriage to fulfill her illegal demands. It is a detailed complaint and natural version of occurrence has been given by the complainant. She was even tried to be strangulated by petitioner and her brother and could be saved when neighbour and police reached. 10. On two occasions, Rs.50,000/-, one gold chain and two gold rings were entrusted to petitioner-accused after marriage to fulfill her illegal demands. It is a detailed complaint and natural version of occurrence has been given by the complainant. She was even tried to be strangulated by petitioner and her brother and could be saved when neighbour and police reached. 10. At the time of issuing notice of motion, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that brother of petitioner is still ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home and hence, following order was passed by this Court on 12.3.2012:- “Crl.M.No.14989 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-7106 of 2012 Contends that brother of present petitioner, who is also a Lawyer and who has also come present, is still ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home. It is also contended that husband of complainant, i.e., brother of present petitioner, has already been arrested in this case and released on bail and that dowry articles have already been recovered. It is further contended that despite that brother of petitioner, who is present in Court today is ready to reconcile the differences and ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home. On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, complainant is ordered to be impleaded as party on filing of complete address. Notice of motion for 29.3.2012. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case she is arrested, she shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” 11. Later on an amount of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid to complainant to meet her expenses for attending this Court and Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. However, even the said amount was not paid, nor proceedings were attended by the petitioner despite the fact that respondent no.2 attended the proceedings before this Court as well as before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Rather, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner that she be exempted to make payment of the said amount to respondent-complainant, which has been declined. 12. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused. Rather, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner that she be exempted to make payment of the said amount to respondent-complainant, which has been declined. 12. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused. 13. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Kumari Meenakshi for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ---------0.B.S.0------------