Court No. - 28 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 448 of 2008 Petitioner :- Smt. Phoola Devi & 2 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Pramod Kumar Shukla Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Mohd. Saulat Wasim Hon'ble Alok K. Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that there is already an order
dated 14.02.2008 passed by this court in detail for issuing of notice to
opposite party no. 2 calling for counter affidavit. Simultaneously further
proceedings of 774 of 2008, Crime no. 609 of 2007, under sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Madiyaon, district Lucknow,
pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow were stayed so far it
relates to petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 who happen to be mother-in-law and two
Jeths respectively. At the same time it was also directed that the trial of co-
accused Suneel Kumar Shah (husband), opposite party no. 2 shall continue. It
is said that on 13.11.2009 altogether a different order was passed by another
Bench of this Court as the order dated 14.02.2008 could not be brought to the
notice of the court. By means of this subsequent order the petitioners have
been directed to deposit Rs.5000/- with the Mediation Centre of this Court so
that the same may be paid to the wife as her expenses to attend the Mediation
Centre. It was also provided in that order that in case of default by the
husband either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation
Centre on the date fixed the interim order shall cease to operate. The learned
counsel submits that probably this order was passed under an impression that
one of the petitioners is husband while the husband has not joined this petition
and has already appeared before the court below and is facing trial which has
been directed to proceed vide earlier order of this Court dated 14.02.2008.
Moreover, it is also said that without the consent of the other party referring
of the matter to the Mediation Centre is meaningless. In the present case even
notice has not been issued by the office to opposite party no. 2 probably
because of non-compliance of subsequent order in respect of deposit of
Rs.5000/-.
Learned AGA has nothing to say against it.
In view of the above the subsequent order dated 13.11.2009 is kept in
abeyance. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 in furtherance of this
Court’s earlier order dated 14.02.2008.
List the case in the third week of February, 2010.
Till the next date of listing the criminal proceedings so far it relates to
petitioners nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2010
Shaakir/CMAn.121787-09