AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties on MCC recall application No. 193 of 2010, wherein the respondent No. 3/complainant has prayed recall of order dated 22.02.2010, passed by this Court.
Brief facts of the case are that a first information report No. 16/2010, was got lodged by respondent No. 3 Nirmal Kaur at P.S. Kashipur, relating to offences punishable u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioners namely Amrat Pal Singh (husband), petitioner No. 2 Jeet Singh (father-in-law), petitioner No. 3 Gurmeet Kaur (mother-in-law) and petitioner No. 4 Pasvinder Kaur (sister-in-law) of the complainant filed this writ petition praying that the first information report be quashed. This Court vide its order dated 14.01.2010, admitted the petition, issued notices to respondent No. 3 and directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested during investigation. However, the court directed the parties to appear in person before the court. In response to said order dated 14.01.2010. Petitioner No. 1 Amrat Pal Singh (husband) and respondent No. 2 Nirmal Kaur (wife) appeared in person before this Court on 22.02.2010. On said date after making reconciliation efforts, parties have entered into compromise and the writ petition was allowed.
However, on 01.04.2010, respondent No. 3 moved an application MCC No. 193 of 2010, before this Court complaining that the petitioner No. 1 Amrat Pal Singh has played fraud on the court as he back tracked from the compromise and did not take his wife with him. Said application is supported with affidavit. On this, vide order dated 06.04.2010, petitioner No. 1 was directed to file the counter affidavit. And on 04.05.2010, interim direction was issued keeping meanwhile the order dated 22.02.2010, in abeyance.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to the affidavit filed with the recall application in which the allegations made in the application are denied. Not only this, it has been brought to the notice of this Court through Annexure-4 filed with the counter affidavit, filed to the affidavit (with the recall application) that infact the investigation of the case was already over and the Investigating Officer submitted final report on 19.02.2010( i.e. even before order dated 22.02.2010, was passed.)
The above fact i.e. submission of final report by the Investigating Officer renders the writ petition for quashing first information report, as infructuous. That being so, no useful purpose would be served by recalling the order dated 22.02.2010, passed by this Court.
Hence, the recall application MCC No. 193 of 2010, is dismissed with the observation that the respondent No. 3 Nirmal Kaur is at liberty to file the protest petition before the concerned Magistrate, against the final report submitted by the Investigation Officer.