Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rupinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 October, 2012
CRR-293-2012 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 293 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : October 8th, 2012
Rupinder Kaur
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mikhail Kad, A A.G., Punjab,
for the State.
Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 to 4.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Challenge by way of this revision petition is to the order dated 20.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the application made by the petitioner under section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No. 2 to 4 has been dismissed.
In a case registered by way of FIR No.136 dated 19.4.2011 at Police Station Tripuri, Patiala, District Patiala for an offence punishable under sections 406, 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, pre-arrest bail was applied for by respondents No. 2 to 4, CRR-293-2012 2 ..
namely, Sarabjit Singh Dhaliwal, Balwinder Kaur and Nachhatar Singh. During the pendency of the said application under section 438 Cr.P.C., the parties reached a compromise. The total amount payable to the wife by her in-laws was settled at ` 16.00 lakhs. As a sum of ` 4.5 lakhs was paid by the in-laws to the petitioner and the remaining amount was payable at the time of passing of a decree of divorce by mutual consent and quashing of the FIR, the order allowing inrterim bail to respondents No. 2 to 4 was confirmed.
Subsequently, the parties could not stick to the terms of the compromise. The husband withdrew the petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as the petition for quashing of the FIR. The husband and other accused refused to pay the remaining amount agreed to be paid to the complainant. It is on this ground alone that the cancellation of bail was applied.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if the husband does not want to pay the balance amount, he may keep the petitioner with him. He has submitted that the concession of anticipatory bail was obtained by respondents No. 2 to 4 on misrepresentation. According to him, they never wanted to pay any other amount and, therefore, on failure of the respondents to pay the remaining amount, the bail should be cancelled.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 has submitted, on the other hand, that the bail granted to respondents No. 2 to 4 was not subject to any condition. According to him, breach of terms of compromise in this case would not give any right to the petitioner to seek CRR-293-2012 3 ..
cancellation of bail.
In the given circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the bail order could be cancelled on failure of respondents No. 2 to 4 to comply with the terms of compromise. In my opinion, the answer to this question would have to be in the negative.
Hon`ble Supreme Court in Biman Chatterjee Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and Another 2004 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 973 has dealt with this question. In the reported case, the accused was granted bail on his promise that he would compromise. Subsequently, no compromise came about and the question was as to whether breach of promise is a ground to cancel the bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The answer given by Hon`ble Supreme Court is that breach of promise is no ground to cancel the bail under the Cr.P.C. It is further made clear by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India that having granted the bail, it was not open to the court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law. Similar is the law laid down by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Pritpal Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. 2001(4) AICLR 749, where compromise was arrived at between the parties pending complaint in which it was agreed that the accused will pay certain amount to the respondents and would vacate the premises by the time stipulated. The terms of the compromise were not complied with. An application for cancellation of bail was filed. It was not averred therein that the accused had misused the liberty granted or that the prosecution was facing any difficulty because of the accused being on bail. The Magistrate cancelled CRR-293-2012 4 ..
the bail on the ground that the terms of compromise have not been complied with. The order made by the Magistrate was upheld by the High Court. The said orders were set-aside by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India.
In the case in hand, the compromise was not on papers only. A sum of ` 4.5 lakhs had already been paid and payment of the remaining amount was not the condition, subject to which the bail was granted. There is no allegation of the petitioner that respondents No. 2 to 4 have misused the concession of bail. Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited cases, I find no illegality to have been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order. Consequently, I find no reason to set-aside the said order and dismiss the revision petition.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 8th, 2012 som