Harjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.07.2018 Harjinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

***** CRM-M-24202-2017 Gurwinder Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

***** CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. V.G. Jauhal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr.Jagdeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate, for the complainant.

**** JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL) These petitions have been filed seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s) in case FIR No.30 dated 20.06.2017, under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station

-2Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur.

The dispute arise out of a marriage solemnized between the complainant and Sukhwinder Singh, who is stated to have left the complainant-wife and the minor child and returned to Italy. The complainant herein has already filed two petitions, one under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the second under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the petitioner(s) herein are the sister-in-law (jethani) and father-in-law of the complainant. On 24.04.2018 on request of counsel for the parties, they were directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre situated at the District Courts Gurdaspur, in order to explore the possibility of amicably settlement between themselves. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contends that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre situated at the District Courts Gurdaspur and a settlement deed has been arrived at on 24.05.2018. In this regard a report dated 31.05.2018 has also been received from the CJM-cum-Nodal Officer, Mediation 1 Centre, Gurdaspur.

Both the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and the respondent-State admit to the factum of compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, both the petitions are allowed and interim orders dated 14.07.2017 passed in CRM-M-24961-2017 and 11.07.2017 passed in CRM-M-24202-2017 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner(s) will not tamper with evidence or hamper the

-3investigation; will not leave India without permission of the Court and will comply with the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.

09.07.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes.

Whether reportable No.