AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.—This order shall dispose of CRM No. 278 of 2014 in CROCP No. 31 of 2003 and CROCP No. 04 of 2014.
With a view to understand the controversy in its right perspective, the facts giving rise to CROCP No. 31 of 2003 may be firstly briefly noticed.
CROCP No. 31 of 2003.
The petitioner (Navjot Kaur) was married to respondent No. 2 (Ranbir Singh) who is son of respondent No. 1 (Vir Singh Lopoke). The marriage was solemnized on 01.10.2000 and a female child was born out of the wedlock on 11.06.2001. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 could not live together which resulted into multiple litigation between the parties including FIR No. 310/2003 dated 25.08.2003 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. The second respondent filed a divorce petition in which the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte hence a decree of divorce was granted in favour of respondent No. 2 on 03.01.2007. Even before registration of the criminal case at the instance of petitioner, some of the respondents had approached this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 24713-M of 2003 seeking a direction to issue them an ''advance notice'' if they were required to be arrested for the purpose of any investigation/enquiry. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.05.2003. On 02.06.2003, another petition bearing Criminal Misc. No. 25629-M of 2003 was filed by the respondents u/s 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail though no case was yet registered against them. In the said petition, factum of filing earlier petition CRM No. 24713-M of 2003 was, however, not disclosed.
The petitioner, thus, initiated the criminal contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents alleging that the non-disclosure of filing or withdrawal of the previous petition amounted to obstruction in the administration of justice.
The respondents were asked to show cause and reply to these contempt proceedings.
CROCP No. 31 of 2003 was, however, dismissed by this Court for want of prosecution vide order dated 04.12.2013. The petitioner (Navjot Kaur) thereafter moved Criminal Misc. No. 278 of 2014 application for its restoration.
while the restoration application was still pending consideration, the petitioner moved Criminal Misc. No. 6330 of 2014 with a prayer "for hearing of the present case before some other Bench in terms of the circular Annexure A-2." In the said application, the applicant-petitioner (Navjot Kaur) made certain undesirable and unwanted averments with a view to seek transfer of CROCP No. 31 of 2003 from the Hon''ble Bench where the case Cr.O.C.P. No. 04 of 2014 was listed as per roster.
These averments made in the above-stated Criminal Misc. application have led to initiation of suo-moto criminal contempt of Court proceedings against the petitioner (Navjot Kaur), giving rise to the instant petition.
While directing the initiation of suo-moto contempt proceedings, the Hon''ble Bench also transferred the pending proceedings for being listed before another Bench. This is how CROCP No. 04 of 2014 as well as the application for restoration of CROCP No. 31 of 2003 both are listed before us.
When both the cases came up for hearing on 21.04.2014, learned counsel for the parties, on the basis of instructions given to them, made a joint statement that the parties were inclined to settle the unfortunate matrimonial dispute.
Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, more particularly the interest of the minor girl-child born out of the wedlock, we thought it appropriate to give such an opportunity to the parties.
With the efforts and intervention of their learned counsel, the parties have now amicably settled the matrimonial dispute. A Compromise Deed (Mark-X) executed on 21.04.2014 and duly signed by the petitioner (Navjot Kaur) and respondent No. 2 (Ranbir Singh) has been placed on record, in terms whereof the second respondent (Ranbir Singh) has undertaken to give a sum of Rs. 60 lacs to his minor daughter in two installments of Rs. 30 lac each, payable on 2.5.2014 and 2.7.2014, respectively. On doing so, the petitioner (Navjot Kaur) has agreed to give an undertaking that she or her minor daughter shall have no interest, claim or lien over respondent No. 2 or his family. Similarly, the parties have further agreed to seek quashing of the FIR No. 310 dated 25.08.2003 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. The Compromise Deed further recites that "all the claims between both the parties have been settled and nothing remains due against each other".
The petitioner (Navjot Kaur) as well as respondent No. 2 (Ranbir Singh) have also placed on record their respective affidavits dated 21.04.2014 and 22.04.2014, respectively, endorsing the contents of Compromise Deed dated 21.04.2014. The Compromise Deed as well as the affidavits have been taken on record and perused.
It is directed that the parties shall abide by the contents of the Compromise Deed.
Respondent No. 2 (Ranbir Singh) who is present in Court has, in his separate statement of Oath, tendered unconditional apology for not disclosing the factum of filing Criminal Misc. No. 24713-M of 2003 in the subsequent petition bearing Criminal Misc. No. 25629-M of 2003. It appears that non-disclosure of the fact was not intentional and was only an inadvertent mistake. Consequently, we accept his apology. As a result thereof and as stated by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar that there is no necessity to decide the application for restoration of CROCP No. 31 of 2003, the application as well as the main petition stand disposed of as infructuous. The Rule, if any, issued earlier, also stands discharged.
Adverting to CROCP No. 04 of 2014, Mr. R.S. Bains, learned counsel for the condemner (Navjot Kaur) on instructions submits that the respondent-contemner is repentant for the averments made in Criminal Misc. No. 6330 of 2014 and she tenders unconditional apology for the same. Mr. Bains states that given some time, the condemner shall also place on record a separate affidavit tendering her unconditional apology for making these averments.
Having regard to the attending circumstances, most importantly the fact that the parties have decided to resolve the matrimonial dispute so as to live peacefully, we are inclined to accept the statement made by Mr. Bains, learned counsel for the condemner and consequently, drop these proceedings subject to the condition that the respondent-contemner (Navjot Kaur) shall place on record her affidavit of apology before 31.05.2014.
As regard to the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner (Navjot Kaur) against the respondents in CROCP No. 31 of 2003, we are informed that the police has submitted the cancellation report before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, Mr. R.S. Bains, learned counsel for the petitioner (Navjot Kaur) very fairly states that she would not oppose the cancellation report submitted by the police authorities and any statement made by her previously may be treated to have been withdrawn.
In this view of the matter, we direct the learned Judicial Magistrate to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and keeping in view the statement made on behalf of the complainant and the fact that the parties have comprised the unfortunate dispute.
Ordered accordingly.