Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lt. Col. Ashish Poonia vs Mrs. Nilima Poonia on 14 May, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
Crl. Revn. No. 2759 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 2759 of 2011
Date of Decision : May 14, 2013
Lt. Col. Ashish Poonia .... Petitioner
Vs.
Mrs. Nilima Poonia .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : None for the petitioner.
Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate
for the respondent.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Petitioner Lt. Col. Ashish Poonia filed Criminal Complaint against his wife Mrs. Nilima Poonia - respondent for various offences.
Learned trial Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence, passed order dated 03.06.2010, thereby summoning the respondent to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC). The said order was, however, successfully challenged by the wife by filing revision petition, which has been allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hisar, Crl. Revn. No. 2759 of 2011 2 vide judgment dated 24.08.2011, and thereby summoning order passed by trial Magistrate has been set aside. Feeling aggrieved, complainant - husband has filed this revision petition to challenge the aforesaid judgment dated 24.08.2011.
I have heard counsel for the respondent and perused the case file, whereas none has appeared for the petitioner.
On 08.11.2011, following order was passed in the revision petition :-
"I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, whereby the summoning of the wife at the behest of the husband has been declined. The counsel, however, contends that if the parties are summoned there may be a scope of settling the issue amicably.
Notice of motion for 25.01.2012 to see in case there is any possibility to settle the issues."
Thereafter, vide order dated 25.01.2012, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of compromise. The Mediator, vide report dated 16.03.2012, reported that no amicable solution could be arrived at after discussing the matter in detail in Crl. Revn. No. 2759 of 2011 3 joint as well as separate sessions.
Ultimately, on 26.09.2012, the revision petition was admitted by passing the following order :-
"Petitioner has stated that there are no chances of compromise.
Admitted."
It is thus apparent that in the very first order dated 08.11.2011, it was observed that the impugned judgment is not required to be interfered with, but notice of motion was issued to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. However, no amicable settlement has been possible. Consequently, the revision petition is liable to dismissal. It appears that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner intentionally has not put in appearance either in person or through counsel.
Dismissed.
May 14, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE