Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 February, 2018

CRM No.M-34268 of 2017


Criminal Misc. No.M- 34268 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: February 12 , 2018.

Manpreet Singh …… PETITIONER (s)


State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

The complainant/respondent No.2 in-person.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


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

petitioner in FIR No.46 dated 04.08.2017 under Sections 406/498A IPC

registered at Police Station Qadian, District Gurdaspur.

It is informed that the matter has been resolved between the parties

during the pendency of this petition. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have

decided to part ways. Petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 has been filed. It is submitted that CRM No.M-822 of 2018 has been filed

for quashing of the abovesaid FIR on the basis of settlement arrived at between

1 of 2
25-02-2018 08:23:02 :::
CRM No.M-34268 of 2017

the parties. It is prayed that this petition be allowed.

The complainant/respondent No.2, duly identified by HC Partap

Singh, is present in Court. She affirms and verifies the factum of settlement and

states that she has no objection in case this petition is allowed subject to the

petitioner strictly adhering to the terms and conditions of the settlement.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, specifically

the settlement between the parties, but without commenting upon or expressing

any opinion on the merits of the case, it is considered just and expedient to allow

petition. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail to

the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall comply

with the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

However, liberty is afforded to the complainant/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 petitioner

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall

be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

February 12 , 2018. JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

2 of 2
25-02-2018 08:23:04 :::

Leave a Comment

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