High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/35233/2018disposed of

Puneet Marwaha v. State Of Punjab

2020-01-27Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh2 pages

CRM-M No.35233 of 2018 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203-3 CRM-M No. 35233 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 27.01.2020 Puneet Marwaha

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Gurdit Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the complainant.

***** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J .(Oral) The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.119 dated 13.07.2018, registered under Section 420 IPC read with Sections 4, 11, 12 and 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 at Police Station City Batala, District Gurdaspur. At one point of time, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The mediator has reported that there are chances of amicable settlement between the parties but since the date fixed before the Court was 17.12.2019, therefore the case was referred back to the Court.

In continuation of order dated 15.01.2020, both the parties have shown their readiness and willingness to settle the controversy for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-. Both the parties are agree that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be paid in cash within a week and for remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, a cheque shall be given till the recording of statements of the GEETA RANI 2020.01.29 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.35233 of 2018 (O&M) -2parties before the Illaqa Magistrate, where their statements will be recorded in the context of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise. On payment of Rs.6,00,000/- in cash before the Illaqa Magistrate, the cheque would be returned to the petitioner. In view of concensus arrived at between the parties, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Sukhdeep Singh states that since the offence is under Section 420 IPC read with Sections 4, 11, 12 and 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982, therefore, parties may prove their bona fide before the Court. Looking to the readiness of both the parties to settle the dispute, I deem it appropriate to confirm the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench. It is made clear that violation of oral understanding would lead to filing of an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail by the complainant party.

Petition stands disposed of.

27.01.2020 ( Raj Mohan Singh ) geeta Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No GEETA RANI 2020.01.29 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document