High CourtsSingle Bench

Gurmit Kaur vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 August 2013 · Citation: (2013) 08 P&H CK 0485

HON’BLE JUDGES
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 317, 420
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-13381 of 2013 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 348 words

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Gurmit Kaur, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 317 and 420, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 156, dated 17.12.2012, registered at Police Station, Sarhali, District Tarn Taran. Learned counsel contends that after registration of the case, the better sense has prevailed and the petitioner has sorted out her dispute with Balwinder Kaur (complainant) and effected a compromise dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure P-1); that the disputed amount was returned to the complainant; and that in consonance with the order dated 30.04.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

2.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Sarabjit Singh, Police Station, Sarhali, District Tarn Taran, admits the factum of compromise effected between the parties. He also concedes that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required by the Investigating Agency for any other purpose in this case.

3.

Learned counsel for the complainant has also conceded the factum of compromise and has no objection if the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail.

4.

Heard.

5.

It is conceded position that during pendency of the investigation, the petitioner sorted out her dispute with the complainant and effected a compromise (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel representing the complainant have admitted the factum of compromise. In compliance of the order dated 30.04.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required by the Investigating Agency for any other purpose in the present case.

6.

Keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 30.04.2013 passed by this Court whereby the ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down u/s 438(2), Cr.P.C.