Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Verma And Ors vs Neha Rana on 3 September, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114267
CR-5035-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(125)
CR-5035-2024
Date of Decision: - 03.09.2024
Sunil Verma and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Neha Rana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Grover, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for setting aside the summoning order dated
06.05.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Panipat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
matter is now fixed for 22.10.2024 for appearance of the petitioners and
has further submitted that on account of the judgment dated 24.04.2023
titled as "Jaspal Kaur @ Pinki and others Vs. State of Punjab and
another", passed in CRM-M-19553-2023 by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court, the present revision petition is being filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
3. Para 10 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"10. This Court has observed that everyday petitions are
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114267
filed before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing petition
filed under Section 12 and notice under Section 13 of DV Act. It
has further been noticed that parties are filing revision petition
under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against order passed by Appellate
Court under Section 29 of DV Act.
In view of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Full Bench
of Madras High Court and with intent to minimise litigation
especially against distant and sundry relatives, before parting with
this judgment, this Courts finds it appropriate to issue following
directions to Magistrates posted within the jurisdiction of this
Court:
(i) In case of petition under Section 12 of DV Act, all the
respondents may not be mechanically issued notice under Section
13 of DV Act. Notice at the first instance may not be issued to
distant relatives. The Magistrate is expected to apply his mind qua
distant and sundry relatives of the respondents arrayed by
aggrieved person.
(ii) The presence of respondents may not be required
where respondents are represented through counsel;
(iii) In case application is filed by the respondents on the
ground of jurisdiction or maintainability or deletion from array of
respondents, the Magistrate is expected to pass an appropriate
order;
(iv) In case an application is filed seeking alteration,
modification or revocation of order passed under the Act, the
Magistrate in terms of Section 25 of DV Act is expected to pass an
order, if parties are able to show change of circumstances."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view
of the above-said judgment, the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the
present revision petition with liberty to file an application in terms of the
said judgment.
5. Dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty aforesaid, subject to
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114267
the averment made in para 11 of the present petition to the effect that the
case is now fixed for 22.10.2024 for appearance, is correct and in case,
the said averment is incorrect, the present revision petition would be
deemed to be dismissed.
( VIKAS BAHL )
September 03, 2024 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
