Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2541 (PNJ)

Satyawan v. Vikas

2018-06-01

AMOL RATTAN SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. 1. Vide an order dated 4.12.2017, this Court (coordinate bench) had passed the following order:- “After hearing the learned counsel for revisionist, when this Court finds no merit in revision, the learned counsel for revisionist seeks time to settle the dispute with respondent. List on 11.1.2018.” 2. On the next date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that since the wife of the petitioner could not settle the matter with the complainant, therefore the petitioner may be given a chance to do the needful by suspending his sentence. 3. Consequently, the matter had been adjourned to 29.1.2018, with the petitioner ordered to be admitted to interim bail to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Jind, till the next date of hearing of this case, i.e. 29.1.2018. 4. On that date, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner had put up his house for sale from the proceeds of which he would pay Rs.10.00 lacs as awarded by the Courts below to the complainant, if he is given 2 months' time to do the needful. 5. Consequently, the matter had then been adjourned to 2.4.2018 to enable the petitioner to sell his house and settle the matter with the complainant, with the interim order continued in his favour. 6. On 2.4.2018, a request for adjournment had been made, with the matter adjourned to 17.4.2018 and the interim order again continued. 7. On 17.4.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would take about 4 weeks more for the petitioner to raise the money to pay the complainant and therefore he may be granted that much time. 8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 (complainant) at that time did not oppose the adjournment and continuation of the suspension of sentence granted to the petitioner simply because he wanted to recover the money. Consequently, the petition had been adjourned to 31.5.2018, with the interim order continued till that date only. 9. Yesterday (31.5.2018), when the matter came up for hearing, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that he was out of station. 10. Consequently, the matter wad adjourned till today, it being obvious to this Court that the petitioner was simply trying to get the matter postponed, he not having arranged for the money. 11. 10. Consequently, the matter wad adjourned till today, it being obvious to this Court that the petitioner was simply trying to get the matter postponed, he not having arranged for the money. 11. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been able to arrange for the money and settle the matter with the complainant. 12. Consequently, this Court (coordinate bench) already having expressed its opinion on the first date of hearing itself, i.e. about 6 months ago, that there is no merit in this petition, I see no reason to entertain the same. Dismissed. 13. Interim order stands vacated. The petitioner be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of his sentence.