CRM-M-25666 & 24445 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-25666 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.10.2011 Supern Kumar . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CRM-M-24445 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.10.2011 Vimlesh Sharma and another . . .Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Nonish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr.Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions namely, CRM-M-25666 of 2011 titled as “Supern Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” (hereinafter referred as Ist petition) and CRM-M-24445 of 2011 titled as “Vimlesh Sharma and another Vs. State of Haryana and another” (hereinafter referred as IInd petition) in which the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.295 dated 29.7.2011 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal. In the Ist petition, the petitioner was granted interim bail on 26.8.2011 and in the IInd petition the petitioners were granted interim bail on 12.8.2011. The dispute is basically between the husband and wife, who have now agreed to part ways for an amount of `8 lacs to be paid by the husband to his wife. CRM-M-25666 & 24445 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - Learned counsel for the State, on instructions received from SI Dharamvir Singh, has submitted that Police has prepared cancellation report which is to be submitted to the Illaqa Magistrate on the basis of the said compromise. Although, as per the office report, respondent No.2-wife in the IInd petition could not be served as learned counsel for the petitioner did not furnish the copy of the petition, yet learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that her presence is not required because the matter has been settled between the parties as reflected in Annexure P-3 (Affidavit) and the order passed by the District Judge, Karnal dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure P-4) in a petition filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which are placed on record vide CRM No.51040 of 2011 in CRM-M-24445 of 2011. Learned District Judge, Karnal on 02.09.2011 passed the following order: “Our marriage was solemnized on 28.6.2010 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies in Gharaunda, District Karnal. After the marriage we lived together as husband and wife in matrimonial home in Karnal, and cohabitated as such. No child was born out of our wedlock. We could not pull together as husband and wife on account of temperamental differences. We resided together uptil 15.8.2011 and since thereafter we have been residing futile. There are no chances of our reunion. All the disputes between us have been settled. A lump-sum amount of `8,00,000/- is settled to be paid by petitioner No.2 to petitioner No.1 in lieu of her every claim including permanent alimony and costs of dowry articles. The said amount has been deposited in fixed deposit account in the shape of Deposit Receipt bearing CRM-M-25666 & 24445 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - No.0074651 dated 30.8.2011 in favour of petitioner No.1 with Indian Bank, Karnal. Original Deposit Receipt is being placed on the file for handing over the same to petitioner No.1 at the time of second motion. We shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the divorce petition. It is prayed that a decree of divorce by mutual consent be passed. We are making the statement voluntarily and out of our own free will and not on account of any pressure, threat or coercion from any side.” In view of the fact that the matter has been compromised and an amount of `8 lac has already been paid, both the petitions are hereby disposed of and the order dated 26.8.2011 passed in Ist petition (CRM-M-25666 of 2011 titled as “Supern Kumar Vs. State of Haryana”) and order dated 12.8.2011 passed in IInd petition (CRM-M-24445 of 2011 titled as “Vimlesh Sharma and another Vs. State of Haryana and another”) are hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. Since, the order is being passed in the absence of respondent No.2-wife, she is always free to file an application if there is any misstatement made by learned counsel for the petitioner in her absence. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 20, 2011 JUDGE Vivek