Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh Chahal vs Nardeep Kaur And Others on 20 September, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124689
CR-5488-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CR-5488-2024
Date of decision : 20.09.2024
Harbhajan Singh Chahal
... Petitioner
Versus
Nardeep Kaur and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Angrej Singh Sarwara, Advocate for
Mr. Ranwant Singh Sangha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned complaint/application
dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) along with application for interim
maintenance dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) titled as "Nardeep Kaur vs.
Harinder Singh Gill alias Gurinder Singh & Ors." COMA/210/2023 filed by
respondent no.1 and also the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure
P-2) passed by the JMIC, Sangrur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view
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.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124689
3. Para 10 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"10. This Court has observed that everyday petitions are 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."
A perusal of the above para would show that in clause (iii), the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124689
Coordinate Bench had stated that in case application is filed by respondents
(in the complaint) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or maintainability or
deletion from the array of respondents then the Magistrate is expected to
pass an appropriate order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of
the same, he be permitted to withdraw the present revision petition with
liberty to the petitioner to file an application in accordance with para 10(iii)
of the abovesaid judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
5. In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed
as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
September 20, 2024
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
