CRM-M-18476-2010 (O&M) [ 1 ] CRM-M-23157-2010 (O&M) ::::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-18476-2010 (O&M) Date of decision:14.10.2011 Shiv Dayal and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (2) CRM-M-23157-2010 (O&M) Date of decision:14.10.2011 Neeraj ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-18476-2010 titled as `Shiv Dayal and another Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “first petition”] and CRM-M-23157-2010 titled as `Neeraj Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “second petition”] wherein the petitioner(s) have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.203 dated 12.06.2010, under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. CRM-M-18476-2010 (O&M) [ 2 ] CRM-M-23157-2010 (O&M) ::::::::: In the first petition, notice of motion was issued and the petitioners were granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2010 and in the second petition, after issuance of notice of motion the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.08.2010. Initially, an effort was made by this Court for the reconciliation in order to save the marriage and for that, the matter was placed before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The husband and wife, however, have decided not to live together and part ways and the following order was passed on 29.09.2011: “On the last date of hearing, following order was passed by this Court: “Learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant submits that he is ready to settle the dispute with the petitioner against a sum of `12,00,000/- which may be paid to her in three stages. He submits that `4,00,000/- may be paid at the time of grant of bail to the petitioner and his parents; `4,00,000/-may be paid at the time of filing of quashing petition and the remaining `4,00,000/- may be paid at the time of second statement to be made in the petition to be filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his instructions are with regard to `11,00,000/-. He prays for time to seek instructions from his client to increase the amount by `1,00,000/- more. On his request, adjourned to 29.09.2011.” Learned counsel for the parties have come to settlement at `11,50,000/-. Hence, last CRM-M-18476-2010 (O&M) [ 3 ] CRM-M-23157-2010 (O&M) ::::::::: installment to be paid by the petitioner would be `4,50,000/- instead of `4,00,000/-. In pursuant to the aforesaid, the petitioner prays for short adjournment to bring the first installment of `4,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in the name of the complainant-wife. Adjourned to 04.10.2011.” Today, in terms of the aforesaid order, a draft of `4,00,000/- has been handed over to the complainant. At this stage, Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh very fairly points out an error in the order dated 29.09.2011 where it is mentioned that “hence, last installment to be paid by the petitioner would be `4,50,000/- instead of `4,00,000/-” which, according to him, should be `3,50,000/- instead of `4,50,000/-. The error pointed out is noticed and is ordered to be corrected to the effect that the amount of `4,50,000/- mentioned in the order dated 29.09.2011 should be read as `3,50,000/-. In view of the aforesaid, as the matter has been resolved between the parties, both the petitions are hereby allowed and the interim orders dated 02.07.2010 and dated 16.08.2010 passed by this Court in the first and the second petitions respectively are hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. October 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE