The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's conduct in using the judicial process to secure bail based on a compromise, and subsequently refusing to honor the terms of the agreement, which demonstrated a lack of regard for court orders and commitments.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. :- The petitioner seeks intervention of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 25-11-2005 whereby he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner.

2. The facts necessary for the decision in these proceedings are that the petitioner got married to the second respondent on 31-1-2001. A child was born out of the wedlock. The complainant/second respondent lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 8th July, 2004 in the police station, Paschim Vihar alleging commission of offence under Section 498A/406/323/341/506/34, IPC.

3. The petitioner and his father was arrested on 10th July, 2004. His father was released after three days on regular bail by the Learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate on 13-7-2004. The petitioner's application for regular bail was listed on 21-7-2004. On that date, his father and the second respondent/complainant apparently entered into a compromise. The petitioner's father held himself out as his power of attorney. In terms of the compromise, it was agreed, inter alia, that the petitioner and the complainant would move for mutual consent divorce and also that the complainant wife would be entitled to Rs. 16.5 lakhs in full and final settlement.

4. The Court considered the bail application as well as the submissions on behalf of the parties including the joint statement that compromise had been arrived at. The applicant's bail order was allowed in the following terms. "21-1-2004 Present : Sh. M.S. Vinayak Adv. for applicant APP for State with IO Complainant with Sh. M. Qamuddin Both sides submit that parties have amicably settled. Photo copy of the settlement deed has also been placed on record today. In view of the settlement between the application and the complainant aside, there is no opposition for allowing this application. Hence, this bail application is allowed and applicant is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties as prayed."

It is not disputed that subsequent to the above order, the petitioner was released from judicial custody, in terms of the order. The sum of Rs. 5 lakh was paid on 21st July, 2004, on that date itself, to the respondent-wife.

5. The complainant/wife through her counsel sought to effectuate the settlement on 4th August, 2004. A notice was sent to the petitioner to co-operate in the signing of the joint petition for mutual consent divorce under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Apparently, this did not meet with any success. Therefore, the complainant applied to the Court on 14-9-2004 for cancellation of bail granted earlier.

6. In the application under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. the contention sought to be raised by the petitioner, inter alia, was that the time for effecting the compromise had not matured, in the sense, that one year period stipulated under Section 13-B of HMA had not elapsed. This is apparent from the following extract of the order of the trial Court dated 17-1-2005.

"The accused persons have denied in their reply that they have obtained the bail fraudulently or that they are not interested in honouring the Compromise Deed and even in reply to the complainant's legal notice Arjun Dev and Madhu Bajaj, the executants of the Compromise Deed had stated that they were always ready to honour the compromise by persuading their son to file divorce petition which in any case could be filed only after expiry of one years period of separation between husband, wife which was to start from 3-7-2004. It has also been stated in the reply that the Compromise Deed has been executed between the complainant and her father in law and mother in law only while her husband was in judicial custody and so he is not a party to that compromise deed.

As far as the plea taken by accused Manish Baja