Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 54 (MEG)

Banpyndaplang Mawlong v. State of Meghalaya

2014-04-03

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2014
Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. By this writ petition, the petitioner is prayer for quashing the agreement dated 02.07.2013 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) between the two private individuals i.e. the present petitioner and his wife i.e. respondent No. 4 Smt. Ditis Jana and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Meghalaya State Commission for Women to desist from exercise power of adjudicating suit, cases and dispute and to confine its role to the power and function under the Meghalaya State Commission for Women Act, 2005 (for short 'the 'MSCW Act, 2005'). 2. Heard Dr. ODV Ladia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1-3. None appears for the respondent No. 4 inspite of proper service of notice of the present writ petition to her. 3. Dr. ODV Ladia, learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the Meghalaya State Commission for Women (for short 'MSCW') had summoned the petitioner regarding the complaint made by his wife i.e. respondent No. 4 to the MSCW; and without having any power and jurisdiction, the MSCW passed an order for payment of maintenance to the respondent No. 4 (wife of the petitioner) by the petitioner. 4. To the contra, Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA appearing for the respondents No. 1-3 contended that the prayer sought for in the present writ petition is for withdrawing or recalling or quashing the said agreement i.e. agreement dated 02.07.2013 between the two private individuals i.e. the present petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and as such, writ petition is not the proper forum for challenging the agreement between the two private individuals. 5. On perusal of the impugned agreement dated 02.07.2013 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), it appears that it is the agreement between the petitioner and his wife i.e. respondent No. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been forced to sign the said agreement dated 02.07.2013. This fact is disputed by the respondents No. 1-3. In such case, writ proceeding which is summary in nature, is not the proper forum to decide the serious disputed questions of facts. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been forced to sign the said agreement dated 02.07.2013. This fact is disputed by the respondents No. 1-3. In such case, writ proceeding which is summary in nature, is not the proper forum to decide the serious disputed questions of facts. If there was force or coercion to the petitioner to sign the said agreement dated 02.07.2013, it is a case of criminal in nature which can be dealt with by the appropriate authority. It is fairly settled that this Court is not invoking the writ jurisdiction to decide the matter of pure private disputes between the private individuals. In the present case, this Court is not invoking the writ jurisdiction to quash or recall the private agreement i.e. agreement dated 02.07.2013 between the two private individuals i.e. the present petitioner and his wife i.e. respondent No. 4 inasmuch as, it is a matter of private disputes between the two private individuals. 6. Regarding the second prayer of the writ petitioner for a direction to the respondent to restrain the MSCW from exercising the power of adjudicating cases/suit and dispute, this Court cannot pass a blanket order, inasmuch as under the provision of MSCW Act, 2005, the Commission has the power to summon as provided under Section 12 of the said Act of 2005 and also under that Act, the Commission had been vested with the power as in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and also the Commission shall be deemed to be a court for the purpose of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. For easy reference, Section 12 of the MSCW Act, 2005 is quoted hereunder:- Powers of the Commission:- 12. (1) The Commission shall, for the purpose of any inquiry under this Act have the same powers as are vest in a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him/her. (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) requisitioning any public records or copy thereof from any public office; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses. 2. (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) requisitioning any public records or copy thereof from any public office; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses. 2. Any proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860) and the Commission shall be deemed to be a court for the purpose of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974). 7. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum to redress his grievances against the impugned private agreement i.e. agreement dated 02.07.2013.