Allowed

Partap Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Sept 2012CRM-M/5009/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted pre-arrest bail to petitioners, parents-in-law of the complainant, in a dowry harassment and criminal breach of trust case. Bail was allowed as the parties had reached a compromise, decided to divorce by mutual consent, and the petitioners started paying alimony installments.

What did the court decide?

Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed; order granting interim anticipatory bail made absolute.

Partap Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No.M-5009 of 2012 Date of Decision: 12.9.2012 ***

Partap Singh & Anr.

... Petitioners

vs.

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶9

Present:Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG Haryana.

¶11

Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL)

¶13

Partap Singh and Kaushalya Devi, the parents-in-law of complainant Reena Devi are before this court seeking prearrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 33 dated 2.2.2012 at Police Station Kunjpura, Karnal, for an offence punishable under sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties had been directed to attend mediation and there the parties have reached a compromise. According to him, as per the compromise, a sum of Rs.3 lacs has been fixed as permanent alimony payable by the husband to the complainant, out of which a sum of Rs.75,000/- was directed to be paid at the

¶15

Crl. Misc. No.M-5009 of 2012 =2=

¶16

time of filing of quashing petition. According to him, that amount has been paid today itself by way of demand draft in the connected petition for quashing of the FIR. He further submits that the petitioners have joined the investigation and recovery of dowry articles already stands effected.

¶17

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant did not dispute the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶18

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have reached a compromise and they have decided to take divorce by mutual consent and petitioners have started paying the installments of permanent alimony, I find the petitioners to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 21.2.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners is made absolute.

¶19

September 12,2012 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE

Partap Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Partap Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Haryana

Nafe Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Chunni Lal Banga and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Suman Vs State of Punjab and Another

Satish Son of Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jan Kalya Samiti, Sonepat Vs State of Haryana & Ors.