Allahabad High Court
Lata Singh vs Sanjay Kumar, In Charge, Judicial ... on 12 May, 2016
Bench: Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 30
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2446 of 2016
Applicant :- Lata Singh
Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar, In Charge, Judicial Magistrate And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Murari Tripathi
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is complainant of complaint case no.552 of 2014, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused in the said case filed an Application U/s 482 CrPC No.3807 of 2016 in which an interim order was passed by this Court on 10th February, 2016, which reads as follows :-
"Vakalatnama filed by Sri K.M. Tripathi, advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for both the parties submit that one more opportunity be granted to the parties for reconciliation / settlement of their dispute by way of mediation, as they are again willing to settle the matter through mediation.
I agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
The matter is once again referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court. The applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court in the name of opposite party no.2 by way of demand draft / pay order payable at Sonbhadra within a period of three weeks from today.
After deposit of the aforesaid money, both the parties are directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 4.3.2016. The aforesaid amount shall be payable to the opposite party no. 2 on the date fixed before the Mediation Centre. The Mediation Centre will submit its report in the matter within three months.
All the opposite parties are directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this case on 4.7.2016 before the appropriate Bench along with the report of the Mediation Centre.
Till the next date of listing before the Court, further proceedings as against the applicants in complaint case no.552 of 2014 (Lata Singh Vs. Sudarshan Maurya) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra shall remain stayed.
If the amount, as directed above, is not deposited by the applicants within the aforesaid period, the stay order shall automatically come to an end and the office shall immediately list this case for further orders before the Court."
The case of the applicant is that the accused have failed to deposit Rs.5,000/- with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within the period provided by the interim order dated 10th February, 2016 and, therefore, the stay order dated 10th February, 2016 stood automatically vacated.
It is further the case of the applicant that one of the accused, namely, Sudarshan Maurya (opposite party no.2 herein), had applied for bail before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, who, vide order dated 12th April, 2016, granted interim bail to the accused and observed that necessary clarification be obtained from the High Court with regard to continuance of the interim order so that final disposal of bail application could be ensured. By the same order, in the meantime, the proceeding of the complaint case was suspended.
The grievance of the applicant is that there was no requirement for any clarification because it was brought to the notice of the Judicial Magistrate that amount of Rs.5,000/-, which was required to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, had not been deposited and, therefore, since the stay order was conditional and the condition was not fulfilled, the Judicial Magistrate wilfully flouted the interim order of this Court by keeping the proceeding under suspension even though the said proceeding ought to have continued on account of non-compliance of the condition. It has thus been prayed that contempt proceeding be initiated against the opposite party no.1, who is the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned, as well as against the opposite party no.2, who had failed to make deposit.
So far as drawing of contempt proceeding against the opposite party no.2 is concerned, there is no good ground to initiate contempt proceeding against him because the interim order itself provided that if the deposit is not made then the interim order would stand automatically vacated. Accordingly, once the deposit was not made the interim order does not survive to enable any action against the opposite party no.2 for wilful disobedience of the stay order. With regard to drawing of proceeding against the opposite party no.1, who is the Presiding Officer of the Court, suffice it to say that the officer appeared to have exhibited extreme caution so as to avoid violation of the interim order passed by this Court and, therefore, he required the parties to seek clarification. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to draw contempt proceeding against the opposite party no.1 as well.
However, at this stage, it would be apposite to observe that in matters such as this, where an interim order is conditional and it is provided that if the condition is not fulfilled, the interim order would stand vacated automatically, the Court concerned, which is to obey the interim order, when approached by a party claiming that the condition has not been fulfilled, must always require the party, which was required to fulfil the condition, to file an affidavit with proof disclosing whether condition has been fulfilled or not and if the party fails in doing so, the Court must proceed in accordance with law after passing an order noticing the aforesaid position.
This contempt application is, therefore, disposed of giving liberty to the applicant to apply before the Court below where the complaint proceeding is pending disclosing that the interim order stood vacated for non fulfilment of the condition and in that event the Court below will proceed in the light of the observation made herein above.
Order Date :- 12.5.2016.
Rks.
