Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Lakshmi vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2017
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM-M-40456-2016
Date of Decision : 27.07.2017
Vijay Lakshmi .......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
(2) CRM-M-40909-2016
Date of Decision : 27.07.2017
Rohit .......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for Mr. Chandandeep, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Prashant Vashisht, Advocate for the complainant.
LISA GILL, JUDGE (ORAL) This order shall dispose of CRM-M-40456-2016 (Vijay Lakshmi versus State of Punjab) and CRM-M-40909-2016 (Rohit versus State of Punjab).
The petitioners in both the petitions seek the concession of 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31-07-2017 00:02:04 ::: CRM-M-40456-2016 and CRM-M-40909-2016 -2- anticipatory bail in FIR No. 68 dated 03.06.2016 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar.
The petitioners-Rohit and Vijay Lakshmi, are husband and mother-in-law of the complainant, respectively. It is submitted that during the pendency of these petitions, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court on 05.04.2017. The terms and conditions of the settlement are attached with the file of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed. A bank draft for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as per the agreement has been handed over to the complainant and rest of the agreed amount shall be handed over to her at the time of recording of statements of the parties at second motion.
Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of settlement between the parties. It is further affirmed that the petitioners have since joined investigation. No recovery is to be effected from them. Their custodial interrogation is not required.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as above, specifically the settlement dated 05.04.2017 arrived at between the parties, it is considered just and expedient to allow these petitions.
Consequently, order dated 17.11.2016 passed in CRM-M- 40909-2016 and order dated 11.11.2016 passed in CRM-M-40456-2016 are made absolute.
However, liberty is afforded to the complainant to move an appropriate application in case the petitioners do not adhere to the terms and 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31-07-2017 00:02:06 ::: CRM-M-40456-2016 and CRM-M-40909-2016 -3- conditions of the settlement.
(LISA GILL) JUDGE 27.07.2017 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31-07-2017 00:02:06 :::