SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mithun vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 24 November, 2017


Criminal Misc. No. M- 7152 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : November 24, 2017

Mithun …..Petitioner


Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ….Respondents


Present: Mr. R.K. Bamal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. G.S. Chahal, APP, UT, Chandigarh.

Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.



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

petitioner in FIR No. 19 dated 03.02.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC

registered at Women Police Station, Chandigarh.

It is informed during the pendency of this petition, the matter

has been amicably resolved between the parties before the Mediation and

Conciliation Centre of this Court. Settlement/agreement dated 23.08.2017

was taken on record on 23.08.2017. It is informed that petition under

Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed. Part of the settled

amount has been handed over to respondent No. 2. The petitioner, it is

stated, undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 verifies and affirms the

above said factual position and submits that respondent No. 2 has no

objection if this petition is allowed, subject to the petitioner strictly adhering

1 of 2
28-11-2017 01:12:16 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 7152 of 2016 (OM) -2-

to the terms and conditions of the settlement. It is, thus, prayed that this

petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh verifies

that the petitioner has since joined investigation. He is not involved in any

other criminal case.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the

petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the

witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above but

without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just

and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated 27.02.2016

is made absolute.

However, liberty is afforded to 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.

(Lisa Gill)
November 24, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
28-11-2017 01:12:17 :::

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