SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manjit Singh vs Karamjit Kaur And Anr on 29 May, 2018

CRM No.M-38282 of 2017



Criminal Misc. No.M- 38282 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: May 29 , 2018.

Manjit Singh …… PETITIONER (s)
Karamjit Kuar and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Bikramjeet Singh Jatana, Advocate
for the petitioner.

None for respondent No.1.

Ms. Ruchika Sabharwal, AAG, Punjab
for respondent No.2.
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?


The petitioner prays for bail pending trial in complaint No.05 dated

03.02.2012, under Sections 498A/406/506/148/149/120B IPC titled as ‘Karamjit

Kaur v. Manjit Singh and others’, pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the

abovesaid complaint. Marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was

solemnized out of their own wishes and was a simple ceremony. The complaint in

1 of 3
11-06-2018 06:22:37 :::
CRM No.M-38282 of 2017


question was lodged by the petitioner’s wife for reasons best known to her as the

petitioner has always ready willing for resumption of matrimonial ties/an

amicable resolution of the dispute. However, the complainant/respondent No.1

did not come forward. The petitioner was afforded interim bail by this Court to

make efforts for an amicable resolution of the dispute, but respondent No.1 again

did not come forward. It is submitted that the petitioner has not abused the

concession of interim bail till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

contends that the petitioner was in custody for nearly five months and is not

involved in any other criminal case. The petitioner undertakes not to misuse the

concession of bail, if afforded to him. It is thus prayed that this petition be


It is noticed that the petitioner was afforded the concession of

interim bail vide order dated 21.12.2017 till 17.02.2018 to enable the parties to

resolve the differences. The matter was placed before the Mediation and

Conciliation Centre of this Court as it was specifically expressed by learned

counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1 that possibility of an amicable

resolution of the dispute needs to be explored. Extension of time sought by the

Mediator was granted on 16.02.2018 till 17.04.2018. Interim bail afforded to the

petitioner was extended. The matter was adjourned to 16.04.2018. Following

order was passed on 16.04.2018:-

“As per report of the Mediator, effective mediation could not
take place due to absence of respondent No.1, despite notice issued
to her thrice.

At first call the matter was passed over on request on behalf of

2 of 3
11-06-2018 06:22:37 :::
CRM No.M-38282 of 2017


learned counsel for respondent No.1. However, when the matter was
taken up at second call, none has appeared on behalf of respondent

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 21.05.2018.
Interim bail afforded to the petitioner shall enure till

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 be notified of the date
fixed in this case.”

However, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 on

21.05.2018. This case was adjourned for today and it was again directed that

counsel for respondent No.1 be notified of the date fixed. As per office note,

learned counsel for respondent No.1 has been informed telephonically of the date

fixed on his mobile number reflected on the power of attorney. It appears that

respondent No.1 is not interested in any kind of settlement, at this stage.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits thereof, this petition is

allowed. Interim bail afforded to the petitioner in terms of order dated 21.12.2017

passed by this Court is made absolute subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds

and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

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.

May 29 , 2018. JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
11-06-2018 06:22:37 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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