Bablu Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 2 June, 2017

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. M- No. 36745 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : June 02, 2017

Bablu Sharma …..Petitioner
Versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Anoop Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the complainant.

***

LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No. 95 dated 17.08.2016 registered under Sections 498A,

406 IPC at Police Station City Budlada, Mansa.

The matter was placed before the Mediation and Conciliation

Centre of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2016 as it was expressed by the

petitioner as well as the complainant – wife that there is a chance of

compromise. The matter was indeed amicably resolved. The terms and

conditions of settlement were reduced into writing on 05.12.2016.

Compromise deed dated 05.12.2016 is attached with this file. However,

certain amount to be remitted by the petitioner was not deposited. It was

stated before this Court on 27.01.2017 that the petitioner is not ready and

willing to abide by the settlement dated 05.12.2016. The petitioner was

directed to file an affidavit in this respect before the next date of hearing i.e.

22.03.2017. However, learned counsel for the petitioner on 22.03.2017

1 of 3
11-06-2017 00:47:42 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 36745 of 2016 (OM) -2-

submitted on instructions, that the petitioner was ready and willing to

comply with terms and conditions of the said settlement. A draft of `4 lakhs

READ  Padala Veera Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 26 October, 1989

would accordingly be presented by him on the next date of hearing. The

matter was adjourned on request of learned counsel for the petitioner.

However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 05.04.2017 and the

following order was passed:-

” Despite the matter having been called twice, there is no
representation on behalf of the petitioner.

The following order was passed on 22.03.2017:-
” Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions
submits that petitioner is ready and willing to comply
with the terms and conditions of the settlement dated
05.12.2016 arrived at between the parties before the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
Accordingly, a draft of `4,00,000/- in favour of the
minor child Dhruv Sharma shall be presented by the
petitioner on the next date of hearing.

On request, adjourned to 05.04.2017.”

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that in fact
the petitioner is not ready and willing to abide by the terms
and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 24.05.2017.
It is made clear that there is no interim order in favour of
the petitioner in this case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner be notified of the date
fixed in this case.”

Today, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

he is unable to contact the petitioner despite best efforts and no instructions

are forthcoming from him.

2 of 3
11-06-2017 00:47:43 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 36745 of 2016 (OM) -3-

Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, this petition is

READ  Mary Angel & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 May, 1999

dismissed.

(Lisa Gill)
June 02, 2017 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
11-06-2017 00:47:43 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *