SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Darshna Rani vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 2018

CRM-M-44476, 44791 45131 of 2016 (OM) 1

CRM-M-44476 of 2016 (OM)
Date of Decision:25.01.2018

Darshana Rani
…… Petitioner

State of Punjab
…… Respondent
CRM-M-44791 of 2016 (OM)
Darshan Lal Batra
…… Petitioner

State of Punjab
…… Respondent.
CRM-M-45131 of 2016 (OM)
Navdeep Kumar
…… Petitioner

State of Punjab
…… Respondent


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.


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


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.

25.01.2018 Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No.

Whether reportable : Yes/No.

3 of 3
26-01-2018 20:54:31 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2022 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