← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/39452/2014dismissed

Tarlok Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-01-23Mr. Justice Krishna Murari2 pages

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2015.01.28 11:23 CRM-M-39452-2014 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39452-2014 (O&M).

Decided on: January 23, 2015.

Tarlok Singh ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent(s) * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.J.S.Brar, AAG., Punjab.

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL) Petitioner is father-in-law of Surinder Kaur complainant who was married to Harjit Singh son of the petitioner. The complainant was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home after getting back the minor son. Considering that the petitioner is head of the family and would take steps to ensure that the complainant is kept with dignity in the matrimonial home, an opportunity was granted to him to amicably resolve the dispute by referring the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

It has been informed that the petitioner has neither appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court nor paid sum of Rs.25,000/- which was

CRM-M-39452-2014 (O&M) ordered to be paid to the complainant vide order dated 15.12.2014. Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that after dismissal of the application for pre-arrest bail of the son of the petitioner attempt is being made for reconciliation. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner has not expressed any positive gesture as observed in the order dated 15.12.2014 to bring about reconciliation. The delaying tactics adopted by the son of the petitioner and other family members to harass the complainant would disentitle the petitioner for the relief under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances are made out to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. This petition is dismissed. It is observed that nothing mentioned in this order would prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail. It will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court again in case some final settlement is arrived at between the parties.

(M.M.S. BEDI) January 23, 2015.

JUDGE rka