Judgment Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 295, dated 20th September, 2021, under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. 2. The basic dispute culminating in registration of F.I.R. is marriage solemnised and bride being financed to ensure that Harnek Singh, son of Balbir Kaur (complainant) is taken abroad. The allegations against the petitioners are that they are relatives i.e. mother, brother, grand father and maternal uncle (mama) of Navtinder Kaur (bride). As per the complainant, she has spent Rs. 17 lakhs and gave expensive gifts to her daughter-in-law while sending her to England. 3. On 14th October, 2021, following order was passed:- “Learned counsel contends that it is a case of a marriage having fallen apart and the only allegation against the petitioners is of having arranged matrimonial alliance of Navtinder Kaur with Harnek Singh son of complainant-Balbir Kaur, to whom Navtinder Kaur got married in England but after some time of the marriage, she is alleged to have had an affair with one Joban whom she knew from earlier times. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, are ready and willing to join investigation and fully co-operate in the same. Notice of motion. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned Deputy AG, Punjab, accepts notice and requests for time to file reply. Adjourned to 03.11.2021. In the meantime, the petitioners are directed to join investigation and fully co-operate with the police. However, in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on ad-interim pre-arrest bail, subject to their furnishing bail / surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting / Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. failing which, the interim protection granted to the petitioners, shall stand vacated.” 4. Learned State counsel has filed reply dated 1st November, 2021, same is taken on record. Copy of reply is supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners. She, on instructions from S.I. Manjinder Kaur, submits that petitioners have joined the investigation but recovery of the amount spent by the complainant for sending her daughter-in-law abroad and gifts given on marriage is to be made. 5. Though not impleaded as a party, Mr. Amandeep Singh Saini, Advocate appears for the complainant. She, on instructions from S.I. Manjinder Kaur, submits that petitioners have joined the investigation but recovery of the amount spent by the complainant for sending her daughter-in-law abroad and gifts given on marriage is to be made. 5. Though not impleaded as a party, Mr. Amandeep Singh Saini, Advocate appears for the complainant. He opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that it is a case of cheating. The complainant was duped of her hard earned money on pretext of getting her son settled in England which has not happened. The allegation is that daughter-in-law of the complainant is having an extra marital affair and the petitioners were aware of that. He submits that terms settled for solemnisation of marriage have not been adhered to. 6. It would be appropriate to note at this stage that it is not disputed that affected parties i.e. husband and wife at present are in England though there are allegations that their marital relation has run in troubled waters. 7. Considering that married couple is in England and the petitioners have joined the investigation, it is highly debatable that amount spent by in-laws for sending the daughter-in-law abroad can be recovered in police investigation. 8. Since custodial interrogation is not required, the recovery allegedly to be made would be subject matter in the appropriate proceedings, the interim bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 14th October, 2021 is made absolute. 9. Disposed of accordingly.