Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 249 (UTT)

SWAMI DAYANAND SARASWATI v. SADHVI ARUNA

2003-11-07

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2003
ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.9.2003. 2. By this order the learned Forum has directed the Bank to pay rest of the amount after leaving Rs. 60,000/-, to opposite party Sadhvi Aruna. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complaint No. 203/1999, Sadhvi Aruna v. Swami Dayanand Saraswati was filed by the opposite party with the allegations that she has asked the FDR to be prepared in her name but Swami Dayanand Saraswati got the FDR prepared in his name. However, in the complaint a compromise was entered into on 6.9.2001. The compromise was that out of the FDR Rs. 60,000/- shall be paid to O.P. No. 1 Swami Dayanand Saraswati and the rest of the amount shall be paid to Sadhvi Aruna. The Bank shall pay the amount and will obtain the receipt. It was agreed that the case be decided on the basis of the compromise. A criminal complaint has also been filed by Sadhvi Aruna against Swami Dayanand Saraswathi and Kuldeep Singh. The proceedings for its withdrawal are in progress. The complainant shall take it back. 4. The learned Forum on 4.9.2003 directed that the application have been moved before the A.C.J.M. Court for the withdrawal of the case. Nothing has been paid to the complainant. It was directed to the Bank that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- which is to be paid to Swami Dayanand Saraswathi, shall remain intact and the rest of the amount of the FDR be paid to Sadhvi Aruna. Against this order the appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. Earlier Sadhvi Aruna has also filed an appeal against the compromise order before this Commission, which was decided on 29.8.2002. She applied for the cancellation of the compromise on the ground of fraud. The appeal was dismissed that no such matters can be agitated before the Forum or the Commission. That is immaterial. But as regards the present order which has been agitated nearly on the ground that the complaint has not been withdrawn and still the appellant is being forced to pay the amount to the complainant Sadhvi Aruna by the direction of the Bank to make the payment. 6. That is immaterial. But as regards the present order which has been agitated nearly on the ground that the complaint has not been withdrawn and still the appellant is being forced to pay the amount to the complainant Sadhvi Aruna by the direction of the Bank to make the payment. 6. In the compromise dated 6.9.2001 it is specifically mentioned that the complainant has applied for the withdrawal of the case before the A.C.J.M. Court and proceedings for its withdrawal are going on. Two years have passed. The complainant cannot snatch the records of the Court and say that now complaint shall stand withdrawn. The order is to be passed by the Magistrate and not by the complainant. Nothing has been done to show that she has not moved the withdrawn application, rather it is admitted that the said application has been moved. It is up to the Court to allow withdrawal or not. The complainant has fulfilled her part of obligation. 7. Secondly also we have gone through the compromise. The withdrawal of the complaint is not a condition precedent to pay the amount to the complainant. The final order may be passed later on. But there is no ground to withhold the payment to the complainant. The appellant himself can take the copy of this order and approach the Court of A.C.J.M. and request to drop the proceedings on the basis of the compromise and withdraw the complaint but there is no fault of the complainant for which payment can be stopped to her. 8. We do not find any mistake in the order passed by the learned Forum. The appeal has got no force and is to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.