CRMMO/298/2015 on 29 December 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 298 of 2015. Date of Decision : 29th December, 2015. Abhinav Sharma …..Petitioner.

Versus State of H.P. and another …..Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? . For the Petitioner: Mr. T.P.S. Kang, Advocate with Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate.

For respondent No.1: Mr. R.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.2: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate. ______________________________________________ Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral) An FIR bearing No.100 of 2013 stands registered against the petitioner herein with police station, Boileauganj constituting therein against the petitioner herein offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC.

2. The

petitioner/accused

and

the complainant/respondent No.2 entered into a wedlock on 24.04.2012. However, discord erupted in their marital ties. A persual of paragraph 6 of Annexure P-9, which comprises a copy of a petition for dissolution of marital ties of the petitioner herein with the complainant/respondent No.2 by mutual consent unfolds the factum of the complainant/respondent No.2 and the petitioner herein on a decree for divorce by mutual consent standing accorded in their favour on the apposite petition coming up for hearing on 15.07.2016 before the court concerned shall proceed to withdraw their respective complaints instituted against each other. Revelation aforesaid does portray of the petitioner/accused and the complainant/respondent No.2 having struck a compromise qua the respective complainants instituted against each other before the Police Station/Court concerned standing withdrawn on a decree for divorce by mutual consent standing accorded in their favour when the apposite petition comes before the Court concerned for hearing on 15.07.2016. Obviously, at this stage, it is apparent that the complainant/respondent No.2 is not seriously concerting to prosecute the petitioner/accused for the offences constituted in the FIR aforesaid rather would proceed to on a decree for divorce by mutual consent standing accorded by the Court concerned withdraw it. Even though, the presence of the accused for facing trial before the Court concerned for the charge arising out of the offence constituted in the FIR aforesaid is imperative. Nonetheless, his personal freedom and liberty also cannot be the casualty. The factum of the Hon'ble Apex Court having stayed further proceedings in Criminal Case No.6-2 of 2014, titled State of H.P. Vs. Abhinav Sharma and others, pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.5, Shimla, renders unnecessary any insistence upon the petitioner to remain present before the trial Court when it holds trial against him for offences constituted in the FIR. Obviously when as apparent from Annexure P-1, copy of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, of the Hon'ble Apex Court having stayed further proceedings arising from the FIR aforesaid pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Shimla, obviously enjoins the petitioner to not appear before the said Court regular appearance where before of the petitioner may have deterred this Court to accept the instant application. The supplementary affidavit annexed with the petition unfolds the factum of the petitioner/accused being enjoined to join his employer M/s Elegant Marine on or around 29.12.2015 for six months. His employer is a shipping company and its shipping vessels cruise to different locations. Considering the necessity of the petitioner joining his employer and his seeking permission from this Court to for six months join his employer M/s Elegant Marine, hence it is deemed fit and proper to allow the instant petition especially when there is no material placed on record by the respondents of the petitioner herein having violated any terms and condition of the facility of bail as previously stood afforded in his favour by the Court concerned. In sequel, he is permitted to join his employer M/s Elegant Marine from 29.12.2015 upto six months subject to his furnishing additional personal and surety bonds to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate and also subject to his submitting before it the itinerary of his visits.

3. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Dasti copy. (Sureshwar Thakur) 29th December, 2015 Judge.

(jai