Allowed

Kamaljeet Singh Sehdave v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2014CRM-M/26337/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The court noted that a compromise had been effected between the petitioner and the complainant, including payment of money and cooperation with investigation. The interim directions under Section 438 CrPC were made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail; interim directions under Section 438(2) CrPC made absolute; directed to continue joining investigation.

Kamaljeet Singh Sehdave Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No.M-26337 of 2013

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-26337 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: October 09, 2014

¶5

Dr.Kamaljeet Singh Sehdave

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr. M.S. Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr.R.T.P.S.Tulsi, Advocate with Mr.Sunil K.Sahora, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶14

¶15

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral)

¶16

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Dr.Kamaljeet Singh Sehdave, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.44, dated 07.05.2013, registered at Police Station, Phase XI, Mohali.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present petition, better sense has prevailed and respondent No.2, Japneet Kaur, has sorted out her disputes with the petitioner and effected a compromise. As per

¶18

SEEMA RANI 2014.10.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

[2]

¶20

Criminal Misc.No.M-26337 of 2013

¶21

terms and conditions of the compromise, 1 crore was paid to respondent No.3-Dr.Japneet Kaur. He further contends that in compliance of the order dated 23.08.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation and co-operated with the Investigating Agency. He has also paid a sum of1,20,000/to Mr.R.T.P.S.Tulsi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the Court and the same has been accepted by Mr. Tulsi on behalf of minor children of the petitioner and respondent No.3. He further submits that in compliance of the order dated 23.08.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner had deposited `3,00,000/- by way of fixed deposit in the name of his each minor daughter. The photostat copies of the said FDRs have been handed over to the learned counsel for the complainant.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Anup Singh, Police Station, Phase XI, Mohali, very fairly concedes that the petitioner has joined the investigation and no more required for custodial interrogation. He further admits that the matter had gone up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court and compromise was effected before the said Hon'ble Court.

¶23

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, the present petition is allowed and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2013 are made absolute.

¶24

SEEMA RANI 2014.10.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

Criminal Misc.No.M-26337 of 2013

¶26

[3]

¶27

The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation

¶28

as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions

¶29

laid down in Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

¶30

October 09, 2014 seema

¶31

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

¶32

SEEMA RANI 2014.10.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Kamaljeet Singh Sehdave v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaljeet Singh Sehdave v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ali Mohmmad & Ors. Vs Karim Bax

Gurinder Singh & Anr. Vs Batra Theatre

Malkiat Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Himmat Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sudeep Shukla & Ors. Vs State of Haryana