Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1889 (PNJ)

Maninder Kaur v. Gurinder Singh Dhillon

2007-10-19

HEMANT GUPTA

body2007
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The present petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (for short `the Act), has been filed with the averments that on 11.10.1999, the parties solemnized their marriage according to Sikh rites and a female child, namely, Tanvi was born out of the wedlock, who is living with the petitioner. 2. The respondent is a citizen of Germany and petitioner cohabited with the respondent when he was in India and whenever he used to come to India. The respondent went to Germany after leaving the petitioner in lurch. The petitioner was harassed and maltreated by the relatives of the respondent. An FIR No. 272. Dated 24.9.2003 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 498-A, 376, 120-B IPC, was registered at Police Station Civil Line, Patiala, at the instance of the petitioner against the respondent, his father Dalip Singh; Simarnjit Kaur (sister-in-law); Raspinder Singh (brother-in-law) and Baldev Singh (Devar). The respondent was declared as a Proclaimed Offender and was arrested at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, but subsequently enlarged on bail by the competent Court. Due to intervention of the respectables and friends, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed on 24.1.2006. The statements of the parties were recorded on 24.2.2006. After the recording of the statements, the respondent filed a petition for quashing. of the FIR, which was quashed by this Court vide order dated 17.3.2006. The respondent made a statement before this Court that he shall appear before the learned trial Court on 29.5.2005 to make necessary statement for divorce by mutual consent. The statements of the parties were recorded on 29.5.2006 but before the decree for divorce could be passed, the respondents moved an application on 14.8.2006, a copy attached as Annexure P.10, to withdraw his consent for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. In view of the said. statement, the petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was dismissed. 3. At that stage, the petitioner moved the present contempt petition alleging that the respondent has resiled from his statement intentionally with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner, who is having a minor in her lap. In view of the said. statement, the petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was dismissed. 3. At that stage, the petitioner moved the present contempt petition alleging that the respondent has resiled from his statement intentionally with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner, who is having a minor in her lap. The respondent has also resiled from the compromise, which was the part and parcel of the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , whereby the FIR against him was agreed to be quashed. Thus, the petitioner alleged that the respondent has violated the undertaking given to this Court on 17.3.2006 and also violated the statement given before the Court of learned Additional District Judge on 24.2.2006 and 29.5.2006. 4. Notice of the present petition on behalf of the respondent was accepted by Shri S.S. Chatrath, Advocate, in Court on 24.5.2007. It may be noticed that the respondent also filed a petition for initiating contempt proceedings against the present petitioner. On 15.5.2007, the learned counsel for the respondent sought sometime to file reply to the petition. The case was adjourned to 10.7.2007 and the respondent was directed to remain present in the Court on the date fixed. The respondent did not appear before this Court on 10.7.2007, 6.8.2007 and 20.8.2007. It was on 24.9.2007, the respondent came present and case was taken up for hearing in pre-lunch session. The case was ordered to be taken up after lunch but the respondent did not come present in the court, whereupon the following order was passed on the said date : "Present :- Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chatrath, Advocate, for the respondent. The respondent was present when the case was called in the pre-lunch session. The case was ordered to be taken up after lunch but now the respondent is not present in Court. The Investigating Officer in FIR No. 272 dated 24.9.2003, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, is directed to arrest the respondent for production before this Court on 28.9.2007. Information in this regard be sent to all quarters concerned so that he may not be able to leave India. List on 28.9.2007. Copy of this order be given Dasti forthwith to Mr. G.S. Cheema, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for immediate compliance. September 24, 2007. Sd/- Hemant Gupta, Judge. Information in this regard be sent to all quarters concerned so that he may not be able to leave India. List on 28.9.2007. Copy of this order be given Dasti forthwith to Mr. G.S. Cheema, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for immediate compliance. September 24, 2007. Sd/- Hemant Gupta, Judge. 5 Sometime later on the same day, learned counsel for the respondent appeared and pointed out that the respondent could not appear in Court after lunch as he was ill. The learned counsel for the respondent undertook to produce the respondent in the Court on the next date, whereupon the following order was passed : "Present : Mr. S.S. Chatrath, Advocate. At 3.40 PM, learned counsel representing the respondent has again appeared and states that the respondent could not appear in Court after lunch, as he was ill. He undertakes to produce the respondent tomorrow. Let the order of arrest of the respondent be kept in abeyance. List on 25.9.2007. September 24, 2007. Sd/- Hemant Gupta, Judge." 6. On the next date i.e. 25.9.2007, the respondent did not make himself present in the court. In fact, Shri Chatrath, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent has assured him to make himself present today but he has made efforts to contact him but the respondents cell phone was switched off. The following order was passed by this Court on 25.9.2007: "Present : Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chatrath, Advocate, for the respondent. Mr. G.S. Cheema, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Chatrath states that yesterday at 7.45 p.m., the respondent has given him a phone call and assured him that the respondent shall make himself present today but Mr. Chatrath further states that since morning, he has been trying to contact the respondent but his cell phone is switched off. In view of the said fact, the first order dated 24.9.2007 directing the production of the respondent through arrest before this Court,is directed to be executed forthwith. List on 28.9.2007. Copy of the order be given dasti to Mr. G.S.Cheema, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab, under the signatures of Special Secretary for immediate compliance. 25.9.2007. Sd/- Hemant Gupta, Judge". 7. On 28.9.2007, Shri G.S. Cheema, learned Senior D.A.G., Punjab, stated that look out notice has been issued in respect of the respondent but he could not be found at his known addresses. The case was adjourned for today for further proceedings. G.S.Cheema, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab, under the signatures of Special Secretary for immediate compliance. 25.9.2007. Sd/- Hemant Gupta, Judge". 7. On 28.9.2007, Shri G.S. Cheema, learned Senior D.A.G., Punjab, stated that look out notice has been issued in respect of the respondent but he could not be found at his known addresses. The case was adjourned for today for further proceedings. 8. Shri Chatrath, learned counsel for the respondent, on whose undertaking the order of arrest of the respondent was kept in abeyance, candidly stated that it appears that the respondent has gone back to Germany by giving wrong information to him as well. On the other hand, Shri Cheema, has pointed out that the respondent could not be located at all his known addresses in the State and on instructions from the Police Official present in the court, he stated that the apprehension conveyed by Shri Chatrath that the respondent had fled, cannot be doubted. It is thus, apparent that the respondent has treated this Court as well as the Court of the learned District Judge, with utmost contempt by showing the defiance. A petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was filed before the learned District Judge and the statements recorded on 24.2.2006. The petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the respondent for quashing of the FIR registered at her instance. Since the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, this Court quashed the FIR on 17.3.2006. The respondent has given statement before the learned District Judge on 29.5.2006 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent but subsequently he has backed out from the same. Thus, the respondent has no respect for the statement made in the Court on oath on the basis of which he has got the orders in his favour. The violation to the undertaking is apparent. The conduct of the respondent is apparent from the fact that though he was present in Court, yet he abstained from the proceedings, which on the face of it is a contempt of the Court, and in fact, interferes in the administration of justice and lowers the dignity of the Court. 9. In view of the above, the order of quashing of the FIR dated 17.3.2006 is recalled, as the sole basis of the compromise between the parties stands negated by the act and conduct of the respondent. After the recall of the order Crl. Misc. 9. In view of the above, the order of quashing of the FIR dated 17.3.2006 is recalled, as the sole basis of the compromise between the parties stands negated by the act and conduct of the respondent. After the recall of the order Crl. Misc. No. 14639-M of 2006 is dismissed as no case for quashing of the FIR No. 272 dated 24.9.2003 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 498-A, 376, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Line, Patiala, is made out nor the learned counsel for the respondent raised any argument to support the order of quashing of the FIR. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the petition for quashing of FIR as well. The Investigating Officer is directed to take recourse to conclude the investigation expeditiously. 10. Apart from the civil contempt for violating the undertaking given to the Court, the respondent is also liable to be proceeded for criminal contempt in view of his conduct for having abstained from the proceedings, which tantamount to interfere in the administration of justice and lowering the dignity of the Court. Therefore, a show cause notice be issued to the respondent as to why he should not be proceeded against for a criminal contempt as well. 11. The present petition be listed before the appropriate Bench dealing with the criminal contempt on 11.2.2008 for which date the presence of the respondent, who is residing in Germany, be secured through non-bailable warrants to be served upon the respondent at his address in Germany through Ministry of Home Affairs.