Yugraj Dhamija v. State Of Punjab

[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : January 16, 2018 Yugraj Dhamija ..............................................Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ............................................. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL ...

Present:

Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate for the complainant.

...

LISA GILL, J. (Oral) Petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.62 dated 17.06.2015 under Sections 498-A, 506, 354, 34 IPC, offence under Section 406 IPC added later on, registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Mukatsar.

It was stated before this Court on 23.12.2015 that the petitioner is ready and willing to amicably resolve the dispute with the complainant-wife. The matter was accordingly sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre However, mediation between the parties failed. It was thereafter expressed that the matter could still be resolved between the parties. On request, the matter was yet again placed before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court. However, mediation proceedings failed again and the matter was listed for arguments on 09.10.2017. The following order was passed on 09.10.2017:-

[ 2 ] "The petitioner as well as the complainant, duly identified by their counsel, are present in Court. It is expressed by the complainant that she is amenable to part ways with the petitioner in case a sum of `8 lakhs is handed over to her as full and final settlement of all her claims qua the petitioner especially keeping in view the fact that her father has now suffered a paralytic attack. The petitioner, however, offers a sum of `6 lakhs and states that he cannot furnish anything beyond that sum.

List on 04.12.2017.

At this stage, it is submitted by the complainant that arrears of maintenance have not been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner present in Court states that he would hand over a sum of `1,50,000/- i.e. the arrears of maintenance, which according to him, are due towards the complainant on the next date of hearing."

The petitioner on 04.12.2017 furnished a sum of `32,000/- instead of `1,50,000/- as arrears of maintenance. It was submitted that the petitioner had come to Court but he was not present when the matter was taken up for hearing. This case was again adjourned to enable the petitioner to abide by his undertaking. However, the petitioner has failed to carry out his undertaking before this Court on 09.10.2017. He is not present in Court and his counsel has no instructions in this regard. In the circumstances as above it is clear that the petitioner has tried to misuse the concession of interim bail afforded to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that despite best efforts the petitioner has not come forward. She seeks to withdraw this petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

( LISA GILL ) 16.01.2018 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No

[ 3 ]