Sherdaljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 31.05.2023 Sherdaljit Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:-HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI

Present:

Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, Assistant A.G. Punjab.

Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant. AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner - Sherdaljit Singh has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 139 dated 24.08.2021 registered under Sectino 307, 323, 341, 498-A, 148, 149 of IPC (offence under Section 307/148/149 IPC stands deleted and offence under Section 34 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.

2.

The facts of the case are that the complainant - Harpreet Kaur gave her statement that her marriage was performed on 06.02.2019. Her parents had given sufficient dowry articles as per their capacity. After two weeks of marriage, her mother-in-law Paramjit Kaur, sister-in-law Ramandeep Kaur and her husband Sherdaljit Singh started taunting her for not bringing a car in dowry and for this reason their respect has been lowered in the society. The aforesaid persons started maltreating her. The

-2matter was also compromised. After 3-4 months of marriage, she conceived. Her mother-in-law told her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parental house but she refused. Her husband went abroad on 01.07.2019. Thereafter, she was also turned out of the matrimonial house. She gave birth to a daughter on 28.02.2020. In November, 2020 her husband came from Dubai. She alongwith her daughter was brought back in the matrimonial home. There was no change in the behaviour of her husband. During this period, her husband again went to Dubai and returned back on 21.07.2021. During this period, the matter was again compromised. They were raising demand for a car and cash amount. She was physically and mentally harassed. Ultimately, she filed this complaint, on the basis of which present FIR has been registered.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he has already joined the investigation and he is not required for any other purpose. Now the matter has been compromised between the parties. They have settled all their disputes. He will join the investigation as and when required. Therefore, it is prayed that his anticipatory bail application may be allowed. 4.

Bail application is not opposed by learned counsel for the complainant. Detailed status report is filed by learned counsel representing the State in which it is confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and the factum of compromise is also confirmed. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner has settled the dispute with his wife. There is settlement/compromise dated 10.02.2023 which took place before Mediation and Conciliation Centre. There is another agreement of partition Annexure A(1). The parties have settled their matrimonial disputes. The petitioner is still ready to join the investigation. Therefore, no purpose would be served by sending him

-3behind the bars. Therefore, the ad interim bail already granted in favour of the petitioner - Sherdaljit Singh vide order dated 10.03.2022 stands confirmed, subject to the conditions enshrined under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition is accordingly, accepted.

31.05.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI) lalit JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No