Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 565/2012
BAIL APPLN. 565/2012
AND
JITENDER SAINI & ANR
Through
JITENDER SAINI & ANR
Through
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI
Through ..... Petitioners Mr. K.C. Mittal, Advocate ..... Respondent
Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State along with S.l
Sachin, Police Station Mansarover Park
Through ..... Petitioners Mr. K.C. Mittal, Advocate ..... Respondent
Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State along with S.l
Sachin, Police Station Mansarover Park
BAIL APPLN. 1616/2012
/o RAJEEV SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K.C. Mittal, Advocate
/o RAJEEV SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K.C. Mittal, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
CORAM:
Through Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State along with S.l
Sachin, Police Station Mansarover Park
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
16.05.2013 On an oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant/first informant in the FIR in question is impleaded as second
Bail Appln.Nos. 565 & 1616 of 2012 Page 1 2013:DHC:8164 respondent in both the matters. Let amended memo of parties be filed by counsel for the petitioner during the course ofthe day.
The complainant/first informant in the FIR in question present m
Court has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
The petitioners are the brothers-in-law i.e. Jeth and Devar of the complainant/first informant in FIR No. 255/2011, Police Station Mansarover
Park registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and 4 D.P. Act.
While entertaining the above captioned two petitions, interim protection was granted to the petitioners vide orders dated 18th July, 2012 and 20th November, 2012.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits that charge sheet in the case has been filed. Since the subject matter of these two applications is matrimonial dispute and therefore, it was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre but efforts to mediate upon the dispute have not been fruitful. However, with the intervention of Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner Rajeev
Saini and Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, it has been principally agreed that the petitioners shall deposit with the trial court an fixed deposit receipt of~llac from a nationalized bank on or before
28th May, 2013; another fixed deposit receipt of~1.5 lacs shall be deposited with the trial court on or before 29th August, 2013; and the third fixed deposit receipt of~l.5 lacs on or before 2ih September, 2013 and the above said FDRs would be prepared in the name ofrespondent no. 2/complainant.
Since a sum of ~1 lac has been already paid by the petitioners to respondent no. 2 in terms of order dated 21st August, 2012, therefore, the said amount of ~1 lac would be converted into an FDR from a nationalized
Bail Appln.Nos. 565 & 1616 of2012 Page 2 bank by respondent no. 2 and shall be deposited with the trial court on or before 28th May, 2013.
The. trial court shall get the amount of ~4 lacs plus ~1 lac converted into one FDR from a nationalized bank and the respondent no. 2 will be entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the abovesaid FDR to maintain herself and her two children.
The petitioners as well ~s respondent no. 2 shall after drawing out a compromise deed in the aforesaid terms, would move to the Court for quashing ofthe FIR in question.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the interim orders dated 18th July, 2012 and 20th November, 2012 are made absolute. In the event of arrest, the petitioners Jitender Saini and Rajeev Saini be released on bail upon their furnishing bail bond in the sum of~ 20,000/- each with one local surety to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting Officer.
Both the bail applications stand disposed of in the above terms.
Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 under the signatures ofthe Court Master.
MAY 16,2013 sd Bail Appln.Nos. 565 & 1616 of 2012
~ SUNIL GAUR, J Page 3
Sachin, Police Station Mansarover Park
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
16.05.2013 On an oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant/first informant in the FIR in question is impleaded as second
Bail Appln.Nos. 565 & 1616 of 2012 Page 1 2013:DHC:8164 respondent in both the matters. Let amended memo of parties be filed by counsel for the petitioner during the course ofthe day.
The complainant/first informant in the FIR in question present m
Court has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
The petitioners are the brothers-in-law i.e. Jeth and Devar of the complainant/first informant in FIR No. 255/2011, Police Station Mansarover
Park registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and 4 D.P. Act.
While entertaining the above captioned two petitions, interim protection was granted to the petitioners vide orders dated 18th July, 2012 and 20th November, 2012.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits that charge sheet in the case has been filed. Since the subject matter of these two applications is matrimonial dispute and therefore, it was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre but efforts to mediate upon the dispute have not been fruitful. However, with the intervention of Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner Rajeev
Saini and Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, it has been principally agreed that the petitioners shall deposit with the trial court an fixed deposit receipt of~llac from a nationalized bank on or before
28th May, 2013; another fixed deposit receipt of~1.5 lacs shall be deposited with the trial court on or before 29th August, 2013; and the third fixed deposit receipt of~l.5 lacs on or before 2ih September, 2013 and the above said FDRs would be prepared in the name ofrespondent no. 2/complainant.
Since a sum of ~1 lac has been already paid by the petitioners to respondent no. 2 in terms of order dated 21st August, 2012, therefore, the said amount of ~1 lac would be converted into an FDR from a nationalized
Bail Appln.Nos. 565 & 1616 of2012 Page 2 bank by respondent no. 2 and shall be deposited with the trial court on or before 28th May, 2013.
The. trial court shall get the amount of ~4 lacs plus ~1 lac converted into one FDR from a nationalized bank and the respondent no. 2 will be entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the abovesaid FDR to maintain herself and her two children.
The petitioners as well ~s respondent no. 2 shall after drawing out a compromise deed in the aforesaid terms, would move to the Court for quashing ofthe FIR in question.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the interim orders dated 18th July, 2012 and 20th November, 2012 are made absolute. In the event of arrest, the petitioners Jitender Saini and Rajeev Saini be released on bail upon their furnishing bail bond in the sum of~ 20,000/- each with one local surety to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting Officer.
Both the bail applications stand disposed of in the above terms.
Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 under the signatures ofthe Court Master.
MAY 16,2013 sd Bail Appln.Nos. 565 & 1616 of 2012
~ SUNIL GAUR, J Page 3
JUDGMENT