CRM-M-44476, 44791 45131 of 2016 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-44476 of 2016 (OM)
Date of Decision:25.01.2018
Darshana Rani
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…… Respondent
AND
CRM-M-44791 of 2016 (OM)
Darshan Lal Batra
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…… Respondent.
AND
CRM-M-45131 of 2016 (OM)
Navdeep Kumar
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…… Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. O.P.Kamboj, Advocate and
Ms. Anshika Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.
*****
LISA GILL, J(Oral).
This order shall dispose of CRM-M-44476 of 2016 and CRM-
M-44791 of 2016 and CRM-M-45131 of 2016. For the sake of convenience,
facts are extracted from CRM-M-44476 of 2016.
Petitioners seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR
No.70 dated 21.06.2016, under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 120-B IPC
(Section 406 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station City Jalalabad,
1 of 3
26-01-2018 20:54:30 :::
CRM-M-44476, 44791 45131 of 2016 (OM) 2
District Fazilka.
It is submitted that during the pendency of these petitions, the
matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. Petitioner-Navdeep
Kumar and the complainant have resumed matrimonial ties. They are living
together alongwith their minor child.
Petitioner-Navdeep Kumar and the complainant-Nishu Bala,
duly identified by their counsel are present in Court. It is submitted that both
of them have indeed resumed cohabitation. They are living with each other.
The complainant, states that she has no objection in case all these petitions
are allowed subject to her being afforded proper care and affection in the
matrimonial home.
Petitioner-Navdeep Kumar, present in Court, undertakes that he
shall provide all amenities to his wife, the complainant as well as the minor
child.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Bhajan
Singh, verifies that all the petitioners have joined investigation and they are
not involved in any other criminal case. There are no allegations on behalf of
the State that the petitioners are likely to abscond or influence witnesses in
any manner.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above,
specifically the resumption of matrimonial ties between the parties, but
without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, these petitions are allowed. Consequently, orders dated 16.12.2016 in
CRM-M-44476 44791 of 2016 and order dated 17.12.2016 in CRM-M-
45131 of 2016, are made absolute.
A sum of `30,000/- directed to be deposited in CRM-M-44791
of 2016, to be paid as litigation expenses to respondent no.2, be released to
2 of 3
26-01-2018 20:54:31 :::
CRM-M-44476, 44791 45131 of 2016 (OM) 3
the complainant-respondent no.2 qua adequate proof of identity.
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.
[LISA GILL]
25.01.2018 Judge
s.khan
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No.
3 of 3
26-01-2018 20:54:31 :::
