Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 184 (JHR)

Md. Azad Hussain v. State of Jharkhand

2008-02-18

D.K.SINHA

body2008
ORDER This is the order on the allegation of Yasmin Khatoon Opposite Party No. 2 who appeared in person before me in the Court on 29.1 .2008 duly identified by her Counsel Mr. Krishna Kumar Mishra. She complained that she was not present before the Conciliator, JHALSA on 16.1.2008, pursuant to the Court's order dated 23.11 .2007. As a matter of fact, she came to learn from her father that her husband Md. Azad Hussain (Petitioner No.1) had produced an imposter in her place introducing as his wife before the Conciliator and obtained her signature on the relevant document of declaration of compromise. 2. Mr. Krishna Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 informed this Court on 28.1.2008 that an imposter lady was produced by the petitioner No. 1 in place of Opposite Party No.2 before the Conciliator and collusive consent was obtained on the compromise petition, on the basis of which, the learned Conciliator reported the matter that the dispute was resolved. Pursuant to such information given by Mr. Mishra and oral complain of the O.P. No.2, a report was called for from the Conciliator, JHALSA with the relevant documents by the order dated 28.1.2008 and the Conciliator submitted the report on 29.1.2008. 3. It would be relevant to mention that Mr. Krishna Kumar Mishra, Advocate on the last day had appeared in person after sometime of the final order was orally pronounced in the open Court and admitted that he had identified the lady as mistaken identity who was produced by the petitioner Md. Azad Hussain. 4. The Conciliator, JHALSA has submitted two reports. In the first report dated 17.1.2008 it was stated that conciliation session held on 16.1.2008 wherein both the parties resolved and settled their disputes and admitted having been living together for the last 6-7 months as husband and wife with their 8 years old son. The Conciliator further reported that the O.P. No. 2 Yasmin Khatoon narrated before him that she had no more grudge and malice against her husband and in-laws and was desirous that they should not serve the jail sentence any more, otherwise, it would hamper her conjugal life. It was undertaken by the petitioner-husband that his wife would have no complain against him in future and that he would maintain her with full dignity and honour. It was undertaken by the petitioner-husband that his wife would have no complain against him in future and that he would maintain her with full dignity and honour. The compromise papers were reduced in writing and the same were sent with the relevant undertaking of the petitioner-husband as well as the declaration made by so-called Opposite Party No. 2 Yasmin Khatoon. The declaration as made by socalled Yasmin Khatoon on 16.1.2008 was reduced in writing by Mr. R.K. Singh, Advocate with the endorsement that she was unable to write and that she put her signature in his presence. The Conciliator executed endorsement that it was drawn in his presence. 5. In the subsequent report dated 28.1.2008, on demand, the Conciliator reported that on 24.1.2008 one Yasmin Khatoon, identified by Advocate Shri Krishna Kumar Mishra appeared before him who claimed herself in writing being the actual informant of the case relating to Cr. Revision No. 394 of 2006 and that her husband had produced a fake lady before him on 16.1 .2008 to get the matter settled by compromise against her interest. 6. The Conciliator further reported that on 16.1.2008 the petitioner Md. Azad Hussain duly identified by the Advocate Mr. M. Ahmad appeared before him alongwith a lady Yasmin Khatoon, duly identified by her Advocate Shri R.K. Singh who introduced the said lady as the wife of Md. Azad Hussain. During conciliation the petitioner Md. Azad Hussain and Yasmin Khatoon were present before him with their respective Counsel. The statement of the petitioner Md. Azad Hussain was recorded by his Counsel Mr. M. Ahmad in his presence whereas the statement of Yasmin Khatoon was recorded by her Counsel Mr. R.K. Singh as they were illiterate, unable to write. 7. Under the above situation, the Conciliator explained that it was very difficult for him on 16.1.2008 to dispute the identity of the alleged lady produced as Yasmin Khatoon by her husband-petitioner claiming to be his wife and duly identified by the Advocate Mr. R.K. Singh. 8. I find that the matter was brought to the notice of the Conciliator on 24.1.2008 by the O.P. NO.2 in respect of production of an imposter and subsequent signing of the declarations by the petitioner-husband and the imposter by playing fraud but no supplementary- report suo motu was submitted by the Conciliator before it was asked to submit. 9. 8. I find that the matter was brought to the notice of the Conciliator on 24.1.2008 by the O.P. NO.2 in respect of production of an imposter and subsequent signing of the declarations by the petitioner-husband and the imposter by playing fraud but no supplementary- report suo motu was submitted by the Conciliator before it was asked to submit. 9. In the result, let notice be issued to the petitioner No. 1 Md. Azad Hussain calling upon to show-cause within three weeks as to why not, under the facts and circumstances of the case, ad interim bail granted to him on 26.7.2006 during the pendency of the Cr. Revision be vacated and he be criminally prosecuted for the alleged production of imposter with the intention to interfere with administration of justice. 10. Let another notice be served upon Mr. Krishna Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 to showcause within three weeks as to under what manner he produced and identified an imposter before the Conciliator, JHALSA as the Opposite Party No. 2 by making an endorsement therein without verifying her identity which resulted into erroneous report and subsequent order by this Court. 11. Put up this case on 10.3.2008 for further orders.