CRM-M No.6308 of 2011(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.6308 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.10.2011 Viney Verma ...... Petitioner v. State of Punjab ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Parties are present in person. Mr. Rohit Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, D.A.G., Punjab. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.54 dated 18.11.2010 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506, 34 IPC at P.S. Moti Nagar, Ludhiana. On 11.03.2011 the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to hand over all the dowry articles and also ready for entire settlement. So, the parties are directed to appear before CRM-M No.6308 of 2011(O&M) ::2:: the Mediation and Reconciliation Centre on 23.03.2011. Put up before this Court on 02.05.2011. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Officer, on compliance of the conditions envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and on joining the investigation.” Thereafter on 02.05.2011 the following order was passed:- “Report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre has been received wherein it has been mentioned that mediation proceedings failed. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant has stated that dowry articles are yet to be recovered. So, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to join the investigation on 11.05.2011 at 10.00 A.M. Adjourned to 07.07.2011. Interim order to continue.” On 24.08.2011 the following order was passed:- “Parties are present in person. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, adjourned to 20.09.2011. It is not disputed that no maintenance has been paid to the complainant. To test bonafide of the petitioner, he is directed to bring a draft of `50,000/- in favour of the complainant on the next date of hearing.” Thereafter on 20.09.2011 the following order was passed:- “Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from CRM-M No.6308 of 2011(O&M) ::3:: the petitioner, who is present in Court, states that he has been able to arrange `10,000/- today and further states that remaining `40,000/- will be arranged and paid in Court on 04.10.2011. `10,000/- has been handed over to the complainant – Meenakshi, who is also present in Court. Adjourned to 04.10.2011 as prayed for by the counsel for the petitioner.” Today also the adjournment is being sought. It was proposed that another period of 10 days can be granted to him for making the said payment but he has showed his inability. No recovery has been got made by the petitioner and admittedly the parties have been staying separately for the last almost one year. It is thus clear that the petitioner is trying to over reach this Court by making false assertions and by getting the order of interim stay of arrest on the basis of untrue statements and undertaking. In the circumstances, this court is left with no other option except to dismiss this petition. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 04, 2011 JUDGE ashish