Paramjit Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 September, 2017

216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 27624 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : September 21, 2017

Paramjit Kaur and another …..Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
***

LISA GILL, J.

The petitioners, who are the parents-in-law of the complainant,

pray for concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 93 dated 07.07.2017

under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar,

District Kapurthala.

It is submitted that the matter has been amicably settled before

the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 20.09.2017. The

terms and conditions of the settlement dated 20.09.2017 are attached with

this file. It is informed that the petitioner’s son and respondent No. 2 have

decided to part ways. A petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 shall be filed by them on or before 13.10.2017. A sum of `1,75,000/-

has already been handed over to respondent No. 2 on 20.09.2017 at the time

of settlement between the parties. The balance amount is to be handed over

to her at the time of recording of her statement at second motion in the

petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1 of 2
27-09-2017 01:11:02 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 27624 of 2017 (OM) -2-

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 while affirming the

factum of settlement between the parties states that his client has no

objection in case this petition is allowed, subject to strict adherence by the

petitioners’ son to the terms and conditions of the settlement dated

20.09.2017.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jatinder

Pal Singh, verifies that the petitioners have joined investigation.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the

petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the

witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above but

without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just

and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated 31.07.2017

is made absolute.

However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to move an

appropriate application in this matter, in case the terms and conditions of

settlement between the parties are not adhered to by the petitioners’ son.

(Lisa Gill)
September 21, 2017 Judge
rts

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
27-09-2017 01:11:03 :::

Leave a Comment

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