SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 18 December, 2017


Criminal Misc. No. M- 33482 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : December 18, 2017

Rupinder Singh …..Petitioner

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents


Present: Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Rathore, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. J.S. Mahal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.


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

petitioner in FIR No. 176 dated 07.08.2016 under Sections 498A, 506,

341, 384, 120B IPC registered at Police Station City Faridkot, District


It is submitted that the present FIR has in fact been registered

due to temperamental differences between the parties. At one stage,

compromise was effected between the parties on 22.07.2015 (Annexure

P-2). Pursuant thereto, cheque dated 22.07.2015 for a sum of `1,30,000/-

was handed over to respondent No. 2. The same was enchased by her. The

present FIR, it is submitted, has thereafter been registered only with a view

to harass the petitioner, who is a Government servant. It is submitted that

the petitioner even thereafter was ready and willing to resume matrimonial

ties with respondent No. 2 but she has specifically refused for the same as is

reflected in order dated 25.09.2017. Thereafter, final report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented after completion of investigation.

1 of 2
24-12-2017 06:30:04 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 33482 of 2016 (OM) -2-

No allegations attracting the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC

were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to face the

proceedings and not abuse the concession of bail, if confirmed. It is, thus,

prayed that this petition be allowed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is unable to deny that

mediation between the parties before this Court has failed. It is further not

denied that cheque dated 22.07.2015 for a sum of `1,30,000/- has since

been encashed though it is vehemently argued that this amount was only in

respect to the rokka ceremony. It is further not denied that respondent No. 2

has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking

divorce from the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC

Nachhattar Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation. Final

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after completion of investigation has since

been presented. It is verified that the petitioner is not involved in any other

criminal case and no recovery has to be effected from him.

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 21.09.2016

is made absolute.

(Lisa Gill)
December 18, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
24-12-2017 06:30:05 :::

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