SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vicky vs State Of Punjab on 8 May, 2018

CRM No.M-45439 of 2016 and a connected case

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

1. Criminal Misc. No.M- 45439 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: May 08 , 2018.

Vicky …… PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)

2. Criminal Misc. No. M- 45378 of 2016(OM).

Sharda Devi and others …… PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Kawaljyot Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Ms. Ruchika Sabharwal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the complainant/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?
*****

LISA GILL, J.

This order shall dispose of CRM No.M-45439 of 2016 (Vicky v.

State of Punjab and another) and CRM No.M-45378 of 2016 (Sharda Devi and

others v. State of Punjab and another).

1 of 3
20-05-2018 01:23:12 :::
CRM No.M-45439 of 2016 and a connected case

-2-

CRM No.M-45439 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner – Vicky

(husband of the complainant) and CRM No.M-45378 of 2016 has been filed by

the petitioners – Sharda Devi (mother-in-law of the complainant), Sunny

(brother-in-law of the complainant) and Laddi @ Shama (sister-in-law of the

complainant). Petitioners in both the petitions seek the concession of

anticipatory bail in FIR No.150 dated 14.11.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC,

registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a sum of

`1,50,000/- has since been handed over to respondent No.2. However, she has

not come forward for filing of the petition under Section 13B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel for the

petitioners contends that otherwise also no offence punishable under Sections

406/498A IPC is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners, it is

submitted, have joined investigation and they undertake to face the proceedings

and not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if afforded to them. The

petitioners further undertake to abide by the terms and conditions of the

settlement arrived at between the parties, in case respondent No.2 come forward

for performing her part of the agreement. Therefore, it is prayed that both these

petitions be allowed.

It is noted on 20.12.2017 in CRM No.M-45439 of 2016 that the

petitioner and the complainant, duly identified by their counsel, came present in

Court. It was informed that they have decided to part ways. A sum of `4.5 lakhs

was agreed to be handed over to respondent No.2 in lieu of all her claims – past,

present and future. Petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

2 of 3
20-05-2018 01:23:14 :::
CRM No.M-45439 of 2016 and a connected case

-3-

it was stated, would be filed by the parties.

The matter was adjourned as there had been no representation on

behalf of respondent No.2 on two occasions. Thereafter, Mr. Sandeep Arora,

Advocate on 04.05.2018 sought time to seek instructions from his client

-respondent No.2. Today, Mr. Arora submits that he was unable to contact his

client despite best effort neither has his client contacted him and he has no

instructions in this matter.

It was duly noted by this Court on 28.03.2017 in CRM No.M-45439

of 2016 that the petitioner has 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 before the Court, if released

on bail. Handing over of `1,50,000/- in terms of the agreement to the

complainant/respondent No.2 is not in dispute.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the

petitions are allowed. Consequently, order dated 09.01.2017 in CRM No.M-

45439 of 2016 as well as order dated 19.12.2016 in CRM No.M-45378 of 2016

are made absolute.

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 petitions.

( LISA GILL )
May 08 , 2018. JUDGE
‘om’
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
20-05-2018 01:23:14 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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