Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sarita Malhotra vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 11 August, 2014

Author: M.M.S.Bedi

Bench: M.M.S.Bedi

           Cr.Misc. M 36717of 2013                                       1


           IN THE              HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
                               AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                                          Cr.Misc. M 36717of 2013
                                                          Date of decision:- 11.8.2014
           Sarita Malhotra

                                                                             Petitioner


                                                  vs.
           State of Punjab and ors

                                                                             Respondent

           Present:             Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.
                                Mr. CS Brar, DAG, Punjab.
                                Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate.


           M.M.S.BEDI,J.

The petitioner is mother-in-law of complainant Richa Kansra, who was allegedly maltreated on account of demand of dowry. The matter was amicably settled vide Annexure P-2. A sum of Rs.11.5 lacs was to be paid to the complainant by the petitioner and her son. A sum of Rs.6.5 lacs has already been paid to the complainant.

The petitioner claims that the complainant is not coming forward for complying the terms and conditions of compromise (Annexure P-2) as a sum of Rs. 2.50 lacs is to be paid at the time of recording of the statement of Richa Kansra and Vikas Malhotra by filing a petition u/s 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that son of the petitioner is abroad, on account of which the remaining terms of the compromise have not been implemented. The liberty of the petitioner is at stake. As the matter has been settled on payment of money, I deem it appropriate to protect the liberty of the petitioner by granting her conditional pre-arrest bail.

The petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, she will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting Mann Tapindar Singh 2014.08.12 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Cr.Misc. M 36717of 2013 2 officer subject to the following conditions:-

1) The petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the investigating officer.
2) The petitioner will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner.
3) She being signatory to the compromise (Annexure P-2), will perform the part of the compromise entered into by her on behalf of her son. She will hand over a bank draft of Rs. 4 lacs in the name of the complainant, within a period of one month, to the investigating officer. It will be open to the investigating officer to hand over the bank draft to the complainant.

In case of non compliance of any of the above said conditions, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. It is made clear that payment of Rs.4 lacs to the complainant, will not prejudice her right to the remaining amount. The remaining amount can be claimed by the complainant on compliance of the other terms of the compromise by filing a petition u/s 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act and recording of her statement.

           August 11 ,2014                                            ( M.M.S.BEDI )
           TSM                                                             JUDGE




Mann Tapindar Singh
2014.08.12 10:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document