SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Aman Bhateja vs State Of Haryana on 5 September, 2017


Date of decision: 05.09.2017

Aman Bhateja


State of Haryana and another


Present: Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vishal Sharma Haritwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.



This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail to Aman Bhateja

in case FIR No.295 dated 03.12.2016 under Sections 323, 406, 498A IPC,

registered at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaishal.

This Court was pleased to pass the following order on

06.04.2017 :-

“Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is open for mediation and settlement of the dispute one
way or the other.

Counsel for the complainant would urge that at present the
complainant is not ready to resume cohabitation but she is not
averse to the idea of settlement by parting ways on payment of
money towards her claim of dowry articles, maintenance and
permanent alimony.

The petitioner and the complainant shall remain present
before the Mediator in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of

1 of 2
10-09-2017 08:58:30 :::
CRM-M-10468-2017 -2-

this Court on 25.4.2017.

The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the
complainant towards litigation expenses on her first appearance
before the Mediator.

To await report, adjourned to 6.7.2017.
In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be taken in custody
in order to examine possibility of an amicable settlement.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has joined the investigation and a compromise has been effected between

the parties. The petitioner has also filed CRM-M-24393-2017 for quashing

of the said FIR.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State confirms the

aforesaid fact.

Since the petitioner has joined the investigation and

compromise has been effected between the parties, the petition is allowed

and interim order dated 06.04.2017 is hereby made absolute subject to the

condition that the petitioner will not tamper with evidence or hamper the

investigation; will not leave India without permission of the Court and will

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

05.09.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Satyawan JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes.
Whether reportable No.

2 of 2
10-09-2017 08:58:31 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation