1 CRM-M No.14378 of 2011 Baljeet Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another CRM-M No.25385 of 2011 Ramandeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another * * * * Present: Ms.Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr.S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. Dr.Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.2. * * * The aforesaid two petitions bearing CRM-M Nos.14378 and 25385 of 2011 for anticipatory bail have been filed, one by the mother and one by the son in case bearing FIR No.7 dated 11.3.2011, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar. In the first petition filed by the mother (Baljeet Kaur- petitioner), on 11.05.2011, the following contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was noticed:- “ Learned counsel states that the petitioner is the mother-in- law and in fact the dispute between the parties arose because of the disparity in the educational standard of the husband and the wife and that the father-in-law has already been arrested and released on regular bail. Further that there are no corroborated allegations of any sort of domestic violence. Learned counsel also states that the petitioner is very interested that the dispute between her son and her daughter-in-law can be settled one way or the other. On his oral request, Sarabjot Kaur d/o Javjeet Singh at present r/o H.No.EQ-26, Pacca Baagh, Jalandhar, is impleaded as respondent No.2. Registry is directed to make necessary 2 correction in the memo of parties.” Thereafter, on various occasions, the matter was sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre but the dispute could not be resolved. On 02.09.2011 in the bail application filed by the son (Ramandeep Singh-petitioner), the following order was passed:- “With the intervention of learned counsel for the parties, this matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved inasmuch as the parties have decided to end this unfortunate relationship. It has now been agreed that the petitioner shall pay Rs.6 lacs to the complainant as full and final settlement of her claim towards permanent alimony and all dowry/istri dhan except gold. As regards gold, both parties have agreed that they will meet at Gurdwara Chevi Pathshahi Basti Nau, Jalandhar on 4.9.2011 at 5 pm, where the petitioner will give as much as amount of gold as the complainant/respondent No.2 will swear for the name of the Holly Guru Granth Sahib in the presence of the Pradhan of the Gurdwara/Head Granthi.” As per orders on the file even thereafter further undertakings were made but no payment was made by the petitioners. On the last date of hearing, again an attempt was made and the following order was passed in both the cases:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment. On request, adjourned to 13.12.2011. Let the petitioner be present in the Court on the date fixed i.e. 13.12.2011.” Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the the petitioner(s) has neither come to attend the hearing nor had made any effort to resolve the matter. A perusal of the orders reveals that the petitioners have attempted seriously to overreach this Court by making false undertakings at different times and have obtained orders protecting them from arrest on the strength of false 3 statements and undertakings. On this ground alone, they are not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, these petitions are dismissed. A photo-copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. 13 th December, 2011. (Ajay Tewari) Seema-II Judge