Kulbir Singh And Another vs Manjit Kaur on 25 November, 2013

[Cites 12, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kulbir Singh And Another vs Manjit Kaur on 25 November, 2013

Bench: Rekha Mittal

           CRM-M-36344-2013                                                               1

             IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

                                                      CRM-M-36344-2013
                                                      Date of decision : 25.11.2013

           Kulbir Singh and another
                                                                        ... Petitioners

                                    Versus

           Manjit Kaur
                                                                        ... Respondent

           CORAM:              HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

           Present:            Mr.Jasmandeep Singh, Advocate
                               for the petitioners.

           REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL)

Ms.Satwant Mehta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the respondent filed the present complaint due to grudge nursed by the husband of the complainant-respondent against whom, wife of petitioner No.1 lodged FIR No.15 dated 21.02.2011 for offence under Sections 376, 511, 366, 307, 451, 354, 342, 506, 148, 149 IPC read with Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Valtoha. It is further submitted that as both the parties are living in neighbourhood, they have decided to bury their differences for peaceful living. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been summoned in a private complaint, their custodial interrogation is not required and they are ready to face trial without any default. The last submission made by counsel is that no useful purpose would be served by arrest and custody of the petitioners in the face of situation that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.

Davinder Kumar

2013.11.28 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36344-2013 2

Counsel for the respondent has not disputed factual assertions with regard to settlement between the parties in both the criminal proceedings lodged against each other. She has got no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The petitioners have been summoned in a private complaint, therefore, their custodial interrogation is not required. The parties have arrived at an amicable settlement despite the fact that both of them levelled serious allegations against each other. One of the cases lodged at the behest of wife of petitioner No.1 is stated to be disposed of in favour of the accused in that case.

Keeping in view the above, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed and on their appearance, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the said Court subject to the following conditions:-

(i) they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(ii) they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

In case, the petitioners fail to comply with the order passed by the Court, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE November 25, 2013.

Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2013.11.28 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court