IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 5253 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.3.2009 Ashok Kumar …. Petitioner versus State of Haryana …. Respondent And Crl. Misc. No. M-5967 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.3.2009 Ashok Kumar …. Petitioner versus State of Haryana and Others …. Respondents Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Narinder Prashar, Advocate for the complainant Anchal Garg with complainant in person. *** S.S. SARON, J. This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-5253 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-5967 of 2009 filed by Ashok Kumar – petitioner in both the petitions, which arise out of the dispute between the petitioner Ashok Kumar and his wife Anchal Garg complainant. Crl. Misc. No. M-5253 of 2009 has been filed for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in case FIR No.57 dated 2.2.2009 that has been registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 366, 420, 292(2), 506/34 Indian Crl. Misc. No. M- 5253 of 2009 and [2] Crl. Misc. No. M-5967 of 2009 Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) at Police Station Surajkund Distt. Faridabad. Crl. Misc. No. 5967 of 2009 has been filed for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in cases which are lodged at the instance of respondents No.2 to 4 in the said petition i.e. Anchal Garg wife of the petitioner; and Ashok Garg and Harish Garg father and uncle respectively of Anchal Garg or for issuance of seven days’ notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) before arresting the petitioner in any case. The marriage between the petitioner and Anchal Garg was solemnized on 10.1.2009. However, FIR No.57 dated 2.2.2009 for the offences under Sections 366, 420, 292 (2), 506/34 IPC was registered on the complaint of Ashok Garg father of Anchal Garg. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 25.2.2009 in Crl. Misc. No. M-5253 of 2009, it was ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner, however, apprehending that he may be arrested in other cases that may be filed by his wife and her father and uncle, he filed Crl. Misc. No.M-5967 of 2009 seeking bail in anticipation of arrests in cases which are lodged or issuance of seven days’ notice under Section 160 CrPC before arresting him in any case. Today, when the case was taken up, Mr. Narinder Prashar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant Anchal Garg along with the complainant. It is stated that the matter between the petitioner Ashok Kumar and his wife Anchal Garg has been compromised. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted copy of the compromise dated 8.3.2009 and affidavit of the complainant Anchal Garg as also that of the petitioner. The same are taken on record. In terms of the compromise, it is stated that the parties have settled their dispute and a compromise has been effected between them. Both of them on Crl. Misc. No. M- 5253 of 2009 and [3] Crl. Misc. No. M-5967 of 2009 10.1.2009 on their own desire had solemnized their marriage at Arya Samaj 2164, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi. Now, they would lead their life as husband and wife. The criminal and civil cases that have been initiated in respect of the marriage would be withdrawn by each of them on their own expenses. The petitioner, it is recorded, is taking his wife Anchal Garg on 8.3.2009 from the house of her parents to his own house. Affidavits of Anchal Garg (complainant) and the petitioner have also been deposed in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the complainant, therefore, submit that since the matter has been amicably settled, the present petition has been rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Shamsher Singh, Police Station CIA Staff, Faridabad has submitted that in view of the compromise that has been effected between the parties, the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. In view of the above, both the petitions have been rendered infructuous and are accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 21, 2009 amit IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5967 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.3.2009 Ashok Kumar …. Petitioner versus State of Haryana and Others …. Respondents Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Narinder Prashar, Advocate for the complainant Anchal Garg with complainant in person. *** S.S. SARON, J. The present petition has been dismissed as infructuous. For detailed order, see Crl. Misc. No. M-5253 of 2009. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 21, 2009 amit