216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No.M- 27624 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : September 21, 2017
Paramjit Kaur and another …..Petitioners
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
LISA GILL, J.
The petitioners, who are the parents-in-law of the complainant,
pray for concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 93 dated 07.07.2017
under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar,
It is submitted that the matter has been amicably settled before
the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 20.09.2017. The
terms and conditions of the settlement dated 20.09.2017 are attached with
this file. It is informed that the petitioner’s son and respondent No. 2 have
decided to part ways. A petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 shall be filed by them on or before 13.10.2017. A sum of `1,75,000/-
has already been handed over to respondent No. 2 on 20.09.2017 at the time
of settlement between the parties. The balance amount is to be handed over
to her at the time of recording of her statement at second motion in the
petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
1 of 2
27-09-2017 01:11:02 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 27624 of 2017 (OM) -2-
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 while affirming the
factum of settlement between the parties states that his client has no
objection in case this petition is allowed, subject to strict adherence by the
petitioners’ son to the terms and conditions of the settlement dated
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jatinder
Pal Singh, verifies that the petitioners have joined investigation.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the
petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are 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 31.07.2017
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 petitioners’ son.
September 21, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
27-09-2017 01:11:03 :::