Full Text
CRLM.C. 2926/2011
UJJAWAL SHARMA Petitioner
Through : Mr. S.S. Saini, Adv.
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State/Respondent.
Mr.Pradeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.
06.09.2011 On 02.09.2011, following order was passed:-
"2. Since the petitioner faiied to join the mediation, : therefore, he was directed to surrender on the expiry of the interim bail vide order dated 25.08.2011 passed by id. ASJ.
ORDER
3. Vide order dated 27.08.2011 Id. ASJ rejected the application for pre-ponement and further prayer for mediation.
4. Though the petitioner has not annexed the order passed by Id. MM, however, 10 has produced the same from his case file. Vide order CRL.M.C. 2926/2011 2011:DHC:9870 V dated 05.08.2011, Id. MM observed that petitioner was granted interim bail by Id. ASJ till 25.08.2011 vide order dated 29.07.2011, however, he has not executed the bail bond till date. In view of the same, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody for 15 days and further was directed to be produced on 19.08.2011.
5. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.08.2011, Id. MM accepted bail bond of the petitioner and further directed to produce the passport of the petitioner before 10 and the same shall be seized by the concerned 10.
6. Ld. APP submits that the petitioner neither appeared before the Mediation Centre nor surrendered before the Court. She further submits that petitioner had not even produced the his passport to the concerned 10 as directed by Id. MM.
7. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall surrender the passport to the concerned 10 today itself by 7 o'clock.
8. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that original passport has been misplaced. Photocopy of the same has been handed over to the lO.
9. Since, the photocopy of the passport has been handed over to the 10, the 10 is directed to CRL.M.C. 2926/2011 Pagts 2 of 3 open LOC of the petitioner before the next date of hearing, so that he may not be able to fly from India".
2. At the request of petitioner, both the parties were directed to remain personally present in the Court as there are chances of the settlement as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2011, the complainant is personally present and submits that the petitioner is having relations with some other lady, probably, he has married with her. In these circumstances, no settlement is possible, as the petitioner has not even returned the dowry articles such as jewellery etc. to the complainant.
4. Keeping the above discussion into view, I find no merit in the petition.
5. Accordingly, Criminal M.C. No.2926/2011 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J SEPTEMBER 06, 2011 Mi