SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2019

CRM-M-5475-2019 1

Date of Decision:06.05.2019

Rajinder Kaur …..Petitioner


State of Punjab …..Respondent


Present: Mr. Vishva Bahl, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, D.A.G., Punjab.



Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No.0035 dated 25.07.2017 under Section 406 IPC (the

offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC was added later on), registered

at Police Station Women, District Amritsar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is

mother-in-law of the complainant. The marriage between the son of the

petitioner and the complainant was solemnized on 13.12.2014. Out of this

wedlock, one son is born. He has argued that after registeration of the case,

the matter has been compromised with the complainant and thereafter, the

complainant has retracted. Initially, the FIR was registered only under

Section 406 IPC and the offence under Section 498-A IPC was added later

on. He further states that pursuant to the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by
1 of 2
12-05-2019 14:49:35 :::
CRM-M-5475-2019 2

this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ranjit Singh,

does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is mother-in-law of the

complainant, however, he states that recovery of gold articles is yet to be

effected in the case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since the petitioner has joined the investigation and she is

mother-in-law of the complainant and the recovery of gold articles is yet to

be effected, since husband of the complainant is not on bail, present petition

is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated

05.02.2019 is made absolute.

However, if required, the petitioner shall continue to join

investigation as and when required to do so and shall abide by the terms and

conditions, as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

May 06, 2019 (HARI PAL VERMA)
seema JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

2 of 2
12-05-2019 14:49:35 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


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