Allowed

Vivek Goyal v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2017CRM-M/22687/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail petition under Sections 406/498A IPC, noting that the parties had amicably resolved their differences via a mutual settlement under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the accused had joined the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; order dated 11.07.2016 made absolute; liberty granted to respondent to approach court if settlement breached.

Vivek Goyal Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM No.M-22687 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M- 22687 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: December 19 , 2017.

¶5

Vivek Goyal

¶6

...... PETITIONER (s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

¶11

Present: Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rahul Rathore, DAG, Punjab

¶13

Mr. S.S.Sarwara, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶18

¶19

LISA GILL, J.

¶20

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.71 dated 18.06.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana.

¶21

It is submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have decided to part ways. Petition under Section 13B of the Hindu

¶22

Marriage Act, 1955 (for short – the 'HMA') has been filed. It is agreed that a Omkar Singh 2017.12.21 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CRM No.M-22687 of 2016

¶24

-2-

¶25

sum of 12.5 lakhs shall be handed over by the petitioner to respondent No.2 as full and final settlement of all her claims – past, present and future qua the petitioner. A sum of 4,00,000/- was handed over to her at the time of recording of statements of the parties at first motion in proceedings under Section 13B of the HMA. Today, a demand draft bearing No.164844 dated 17.11.2017 amounting to `4,00,000/- drawn on the State Bank of India, Agarnagar, Ludhiana in favour of respondent No.2 has been handed over to learned counsel for respondent No.2 for onward transmission to her in terms of the said settlement. The petitioner undertakes to hand over the rest of the settled amount to respondent No.2 at the time of recording of statements of the parties at second motion in proceedings under Section 13B of the HMA. The petitioner, it is submitted, has joined investigation. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 verifies and affirms the factual position as above. It is submitted that his client has no objection if this petition is allowed subject to the petitioner strictly adhering to the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ravinder Kumar, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is likely to abscond, if released on bail.

¶28

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, specifically the compromise arrived at between the parties, but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 11.07.2016 is made absolute.

¶29

Omkar Singh 2017.12.21 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

CRM No.M-22687 of 2016

¶31

-3-

¶32

However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to file appropriate application in this case, if the terms and conditions of settlement arrived at between the parties are not adhered to by the petitioner.

¶33

( LISA GILL ) December 19 , 2017. JUDGE ‘om’

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶35

Omkar Singh 2017.12.21 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Vivek Goyal v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Goyal v. State of Punjab & Anr.

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

Sunder Vs State of Haryana

Raj Bala & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Rupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurdev Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Kulwinder Singh Alias Kinda Vs State of Punjab

Sukhcharan Singh @ Sukhpreet Singh Vs the State of Punjab