IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 AMANDEEP KAUR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

The instant petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court to respondent No.2 in case FIR No.157 dated 26.10.2024 under Sections 354, 354-A, 406, 498-A and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar Patiala, District Patiala vide impugned order dated 08.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-10019-2025.

2. The brief facts as culled out from the present FIR are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Sukhwinder Singh on 02.12.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of her marriage sufficient amount was spent by her parents and gifts were also given to her in-laws family. However, soon after the marriage, the in-laws family of the petitioner allegedly started harassing her for demand of dowry. It was upon these allegations that the instant FIR was got lodged by the petitioner against her in-laws family.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had granted the concession of anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 in view of the fact that the matter was settled between the parties. However, as per the settlement respondent No.2 has failed to send the petitioner abroad, thus has not complied with the compromise, and he is even threatening the petitioner to withdraw the present FIR. He, therefore, submits that the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner deserves to be cancelled.

4. The learned State counsel submits that this Court after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced, allowed the petition/application filed before it.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the distorted material facts, particularly true scope and legal effect of the settlement arrived at before the Mediation Centre, District Courts, Patiala, and has attempted to give the settlement and interpretation that never intended or agreed upon by respondent No.2. He further submits that the as per the terms and conditions of the settlement, respondent No.2 and her husband applied for visa for U.K. for the petitioner through the agent of her choice and even made the payment for the same. However, the visa application was declined by the U.K. Embassy and the grounds of refusal was also supplied to the petitioner. Thus, respondent No.2 has duly obeyed the terms and conditions of the settlement and it is the petitioner who has filed the instant petition with ulterior motives just to harass respondent No.2, which is an abuse of the process of law.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record with their able assistance.

7. Perusal of the record shows that the instant FIR is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband. Moreover, it was only after respondent No.2 joined and cooperated in the investigation that her petition for anticipatory bail was allowed on 08.04.2025. Meanwhile, a settlement was arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre at Patiala. As per the terms of the same, respondent No.2 had duly extended all support for application of the petitioner for a visa to the U.K. However, the same was declined by the U.K. Embassy. Be that as it may, in no way can the same be understood as a violation of the terms of the settlement, so as to seek cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2, who in fact is the mother-in-law of the petitioner.

6. As per the settled proposition of law, once bail has been granted, it would require cogent and overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. The order granting bail can only be revoked