← Library
High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./2555/2016

Reena v. State & ANR.

2018-07-23Hon'Ble Mr. Justice R.K.Gauba2 pages

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2555/2016 REENA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ajay Kumar Pipaniya with Ms.

Mahima Chaudhary, Advocates.

versus STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Arun K. Sharma, APP for State with SI Sangeeta, DIU/NW.

Mr. Shailender Dahiya, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

O R D E R

% 23.07.2018 The second respondent is an accused facing criminal investigation in terms of the allegations made in FIR No. 300/2016, Police Station Shalimar Bagh for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/506/509/307/34 IPC. By order dated 09.05.2016, he was admitted to interim bail for 15 days and, by order dated 26.05.2016, the said interim bail was made absolute by the court of sessions, such relief being subject to certain conditions inclusive of deposit of Rs.5.50 lakhs in the form of fixed deposit receipt in a nationalised bank in favour of the petitioner, this with reference to her claim for return of istridhan articles.

The present petition has been filed by the complainant/wife CRL.M.C. 2555/2016

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of said bail orders primarily on the ground that the second respondent has failed to abide by the terms of settlement agreement entered upon before the mediation centre on 06.05.2016. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The settlement agreement, as pointed out by the counsel for the second respondent, did not address all the disputes between the parties inasmuch as there was no resolution with regard to status of the matrimonial relationship. The settlement was only qua the claim of her istridhan articles which according to her had been wrongly withheld leading to criminal process being initiated against the second respondent. The learned additional sessions judge has imposed suitable conditions in that regard in the impugned order.

The petition is dismissed.

R.K.GAUBA, J JULY 23, 2018 srb CRL.M.C. 2555/2016