203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No. M- 33482 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : December 18, 2017
Rupinder Singh …..Petitioner
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Rathore, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.S. Mahal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
It is submitted that the present FIR has in fact been registered
due to temperamental differences between the parties. At one stage,
compromise was effected between the parties on 22.07.2015 (Annexure
P-2). Pursuant thereto, cheque dated 22.07.2015 for a sum of `1,30,000/-
was handed over to respondent No. 2. The same was enchased by her. The
present FIR, it is submitted, has thereafter been registered only with a view
to harass the petitioner, who is a Government servant. It is submitted that
the petitioner even thereafter was ready and willing to resume matrimonial
ties with respondent No. 2 but she has specifically refused for the same as is
reflected in order dated 25.09.2017. Thereafter, final report under
1 of 2
24-12-2017 06:30:04 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 33482 of 2016 (OM) -2-
No allegations attracting the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC
were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to face the
proceedings and not abuse the concession of bail, if confirmed. It is, thus,
prayed that this petition be allowed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is unable to deny that
mediation between the parties before this Court has failed. It is further not
denied that cheque dated 22.07.2015 for a sum of `1,30,000/- has since
been encashed though it is vehemently argued that this amount was only in
respect to the rokka ceremony. It is further not denied that respondent No. 2
has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking
divorce from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC
Nachhattar Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation. Final
been presented. It is verified that the petitioner is not involved in any other
criminal case and no recovery has to be effected from him.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the
petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is 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 21.09.2016
is made absolute.
December 18, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
24-12-2017 06:30:05 :::