MEENAKSHI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 in case FIR No. 5 dated 15.1.2013 registered under Sections 498- A/406/506/323/34 IPC at Police Station PS Bhawanigarh, Sangrur.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that aforesaid FIR was registered against respondent No.2 and his family members. The bail application filed by respondent No.2 was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 18.2013. Thereafter, respondent No.2 approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail by way of filing Crl. Misc. No. M-8754 of 2013. During pendency of the bail petition before this Court, an amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties and on the statement made by counsel for the petitioner with regard to compromise, interim order passed in the petition for grant of bail was made absolute on 30.9.2013. Subsequently some differences arose between the parties and now the present petition has been filed by the complainant under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 on the ground that she was being harassed by respondent No.2 and compromise was effected just to obtain anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was assaulted by respondent No.2 and she was given merciless beatings, which resulted into abortion, which is clear from report dated 29.1.2016. Learned counsel further contends that due to the beatings, there was severe bleeding and the injuries caused to the petitioner were corroborated with the ultrasound report issued by Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. A written representation was also made to SSP, Sangrur in this regard but no action was taken thereupon. Learned counsel also contends that because of the compromise, no investigation of the case was conducted and till date no challan has been presented. Even no action has been taken on the subsequent complaint made by the petitioner. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are sufficient grounds to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2.