Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anjana And 4 Others vs State Of Up And Another on 15 October, 2020
Author: Ravi Nath Tilhari
Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 6 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15217 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt. Anjana And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
1. Heard Sri Vikas Rana, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A for the State.
2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings along with impugned summoning order dated 02.11.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, District Pilibhit in Complaint Case No. 216 of 2019 (Rahul Vs. Anjana and others), under Sections 452/323/506 IPC, Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, pending before the Judicial Magistrate Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.
3. The opposite party no. 2, the husband of applicant no. 1 has filed complaint on 20.02.2019 under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C against the applicants on the averments that the marriage of the applicant no. 1 with opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 07.06.2017, but later on their relationship became strained. On 10.07.2018 the applicant no. 1 with her maternal uncle and aunty i.e. applicant nos. 2 and 3 went out of the matrimonial home and had taken away some other jewelry and never came back. On the date of incident 27.10.2018 the applicants forcibly entered into the house of opposite party no. 2 and beaten him. On the said complaint after recording the statement of opposite party no. 2 under section 200 Cr.P.C and the statement of witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 under section 202 Cr.P.C the learned Magistrate passed the summoning order against the applicants under sections 452/323/506 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated. The correct facts are that due to matrimonial dispute between the applicant no 1 and opposite party no. 2, the applicant no. 1 lodged an F.I.R. on 05.12.2018 in case crime no. 699 of 2018, under sections 498-A/323/504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Bareilly against the opposite party no. 2 and his other family members. The applicant no. 1 also filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 143 of 2019, under section 125 Cr.P.C against the opposite party no. 2 before the Principal Judge Family Court in which by order dated 15.02.2020 the maintenance has been awarded to the applicant no. 1. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicant nos. 4 and 5 being maternal uncle and aunty and with whom the applicant no. 1 is residing, they have also been falsely implicated.
5. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the complaint case has been filed to create pressure upon the applicants to compromise, the cases instituted by the applicant no. 1 as mentioned above. It has further been submitted that, predominately the dispute between the parties is matrimonial dispute. The learned Magistrate failed to consider that the complainant in his statement did not take the name of the applicant no. 1 in the incident dated 27.10.2018 whereas PW-2 in his statement under section 202 Cr.P.C did not take the names of applicant nos. 2 and 3, which made the entire version of complaint doubtful. The requisite inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. was not made by the learned Magistrate. The applicant accused persons are the resident at a place out side the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Bisalpur, District Pilibhit and as such inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C was mandatory. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of "National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz & Another reported in (2013) 2 SCC 488". He has further placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in case of "Smt. Parvender Kaur And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another passed in Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27369 of 2018 decided on 12.09.2018", and in the case of "Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya and another Vs. State of U.P. and Another passed in Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27788 of 2018 decided on 27.08.2018", in support of his contention that a conscious decision has to be taken by the learned Magistrate and specific order is required to be passed regarding postponement of issuing process and for initiation of inquiry either by himself or ordering investigation, as the case may be. He has further placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of "S.K. Bhowmik Vs. S.K. Arora and Another" decided on 19.09.2007."
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the dispute being matrimonial/outcome of matrimonial dispute. There are fair chances of settlement through, the process of mediation.
7. Per contra, Sri Pankaj Saxena learned A.G.A has submitted that although, inquiry contemplated by section 202 Cr.P.C. in cases where the accused persons reside beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, is must, but he submits that in the present case such inquiry was made. The statement of witnesses were recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it cannot be said that no such inquiry was held by the learned Magistrate. Sri Pankaj Saxena learned A.G.A has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Vijay Dhanuka etc. Vs. Najima Mamtaj etc reported in (2014) 14 SCC 638", and in the case of "Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings reported in (2019) 16 SCC 610".
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material brought on record.
9. So far as, the question of holding of an inquiry by the learned Magistrate under section 202 Cr.P.C. in cases where the accused persons are residing at a place beyond the area of the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, is concerned, it is relevant to reproduce section 202 Cr.P.C. as amended w.e.f 23.06.2006 which reads as under:-
202 . Postponement of issue of process.
(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,--
(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or
(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.
(2) In an inquiry under sub- section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.
(3) If an investigation under sub- section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer- in- charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.
10. A bare perusal of section 202 Cr.P.C. shows that in case in which the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, he shall postpone issue of process against the accused and shall hold an inquiry either by himself or direct investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as the Magistrate thinks it fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The use of expression shall makes it mandatory for the Magistrate to hold the inquiry contemplated by the section where the accused resides beyond his territorial jurisdiction. The expression shall, is some times read as directory but ordinarily it is read as mandatory. The inquiry may be made by the Magistrate himself or he may direct investigation to be made by the police Officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. The scope of inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. is limited to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint for limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process is made out. The issuance of process to the accused calling upon him to appear in the criminal cases is a serious matter. The law imposes a serious responsibility on the Magistrate to decide, if, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should it be made as a instrument of harassment to the accused. Lack of material particulars and non-application of mind as to the materials cannot be brushed aside as a procedural irregularity.
11. In "National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz reported in 2013 (2) SCC 488" the facts were that the accused was residing out side the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and he failed to carry out any inquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended section 202 Cr.P.C. which amendment was not noticed by the learned Magistrate, and the process was issued on perusal of the complaint and the documents attached thereto, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Magistrate was illegal and the High Court acted in accordance with law in setting aside the said order. It is relevant to reproduce the para nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 of National Bank of Oman (Supra) as under:-
8. We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.
9. The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 CrPC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court. The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not. Investigation under Section 202 CrPC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint:
(i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court;
(ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and
(iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.
10. Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted:
"and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction,"
The notes on clauses for the abovementioned amendment read as follows:
"False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."
The amendment has come into force w.e.f. 23-6-2006 vide Notification No. S.O. 923(E) dated 21-6-2006.
11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postponement of the issue of the process "in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction" and thereafter to either inquire into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is as to whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not.
12. In "Vijay Dhanuka etc Vs. Nazima Mamtaj etc reported in 2014 (14) SCC 638" wherein also the residence of the accused was shown at the place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and the Magistrate had issued process after examination of the complainant and two witnesses, questions arose for determination (i) whether it was mandatory to hold inquiry or investigation for the purpose of deciding whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding, and (ii) whether the learned Magistrate before issuing summons had held the inquiry as mandated by section 202 Cr.P.C.
13. In Vijay Dhanuka etc. (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case where accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry or investigation as the case may be, by the Magistrate is mandatory, which is aimed to prevent innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false complaints.
14. On the point, if inquiry as mandated by section 202 Cr.P.C was held by the Magistrate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Dhanuka etc (Supra) held that "inquiry" as defined under section 2(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure means every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or Court. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under section 202 Cr.P.C. In the inquiry envisaged under section 202 Cr.P.C. the witnesses are examined and this exercise by the Magistrate for the purpose of deciding, whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, was held nothing but an inquiry under section 202 of the Code.
15. It is relevant to reproduce paragraph nos. 11 to 16 of Vijay Dhanuka (Supra) as under:-
11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postponement of the issue of the process "in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction" and thereafter to either inquire into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is as to whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not.
12. The words "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction" were inserted by Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f. 23-6-2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of the legislature, was essential as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places in order to harass them. The note for the amendment reads as follows:
"False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."
The use of the expression "shall" prima facie makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The word "shall" is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context or the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of the word "shall" in all circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expression "shall" and the background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
13. In view of the decision of this Court in Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 435 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1121 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 708] , this point need not detain us any further as in the said case, this Court has clearly held that the provision aforesaid is mandatory. It is apt to reproduce the following passage from the said judgment: (SCC p. 449, para 40) "40. The Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 202 CrPC, though the appellants were outside his territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 202 CrPC were amended vide the Amendment Act, 2005, making it [Ed.: The matter between the two asterisks has been emphasised in original as well.] mandatory to postpone the issue of process [Ed.: The matter between the two asterisks has been emphasised in original as well.] where the accused resides in an area beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. The same was found necessary in order to protect innocent persons from being harassed by unscrupulous persons and making it obligatory upon the Magistrate to enquire into the case himself, or to direct investigation to be made by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of finding out whether or not, there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused before issuing summons in such cases."
14. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, the next question which falls for our determination is whether the learned Magistrate before issuing summons has held the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code. The word "inquiry" has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Code, the same reads as follows:
"2. (g) ''inquiry' means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court;"
It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or the court is an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code.
15. In the present case, as we have stated earlier, the Magistrate has examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and the two witnesses and only thereafter he had directed for issuance of process.
16. In view of what we have observed above, we do not find any error in the order impugned [Vijay Dhanuka, In re, Criminal Revision No. 508 of 2013, order dated 19-2-2013 (Cal)] . In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed accordingly.
16. In the Case of "Birla Corporation limited Vs. Adventz Investments and holdings reported in 2019 (16) SCC 610" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same preposition of law that at the stage of inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C the Magistrate is only concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence in support of the averments in the complaint to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
17. Thus, the law as settled is that the inquiry or the investigation as the case may be, by the Magistrate is mandatory where the accused is residing beyond the area of exercise of his jurisdiction. In the inquiry envisaged under section 202 Cr.P.C the witnesses are examined and this exercise by the Magistrate is an inquiry for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If witnesses have been examined it cannot be said that any inquiry as contemplated by amended section 202 Cr.P.C. was not held.
18. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Smt. Parvinder Kaur and another (Supra), Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya (Supra) and judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of S.K. Bhowmik (Supra).
19. In Smt. Parvinder Kaur and another (Supra) as well as Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya (Supra) this Court held that the Magistrate before issuing process after invoking this provision should satisfy himself that the complaint filed against the person residing outside the jurisdiction of the court is not for his harassment. How the Magistrate has satisfied himself in this regard must be reflected from the proceedings conducted by him. Therefore, a conscious decision has to be taken. Specific order is required to be passed regarding postponement of issuing process and for initiation of inquiry either by himself or ordering investigation, as the case may be. If the Magistrate decides to inquire himself he should put necessary questions with the witnesses and also to the complainant, like, identity of accused, acquaintance of complainant and witness with the accused, relationship in between accused and complainant and in between complainant and witnesses etc. If, the Magistrate decides to order investigation then purpose of investigation and person to whom investigation is entrusted should be clearly mentioned by giving a reasonable time to complete the investigation.
20. In the case Smt. Parvinder Kaur and another (Supra) this court has held as under in paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 :-
"5. To fulfil the intention of the statue, a Magistrate before issuing process after invoking this provision should satisfy himself that the complaint filed against the person residing outside the jurisdiction of the court is not for his harassment. How the magistrate has satisfied himself in this regard must be reflected from the proceedings conducted by him. Therefore, a conscious decision has to be taken. Specific order is required to be passed regarding postponement of issuing process and for initiation of enquiry either by himself or ordering investigation, as the case may be. If the Magistrate decides to enquire himself he should put necessary questions with the witnesses and also to the complainant, like; identity of accused, acquaintance of complainant and witness with the accused, relationship in between accused and complainant and in between complaint and witnesses etc.
6. If, however, the Magistrate decides to order investigation then purpose of investigation and person to whom investigation is entrusted should be clearly mentioned by giving a reasonable time to complete the investigation. It is also important to note that this investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C. is different from the investigation under section 156 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Magistrate before ordering investigation must ensure that the investigating officer or any other person shall not be allowed to arrest the accused in such investigation. The Magistrate should also keep in mind the proviso added to sub-section(1) of section 202, which deals with cases wherein investigation could not be directed.
7. In the present case, it is not reflected from the proceedings that the Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction after complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. To the contrary, the Magistrate has summoned accused person, as is evident from the impugned summoning order without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C."
21. The aforesaid judgments in Smt. Parvinder Kaur and another (Supra) and Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya (Supra) have considered the Apex Court judgment in National Bank of Oman (Supra), which was a case where any inquiry as mandated by section 202 Cr.P.C. was not held by the learned Magistrate, as the amended section 202 Cr.P.C. was not noticed by the concerned Magistrate. In National Bank of Oman (Supra), learned Magistrate had not examined the witnesses. The process was issued on perusal of the complaint, the statement of the complainant and the documents attached to the complaint. A perusal of the judgments of this Court, aforesaid, shows that in those cases the Magistrate had not exercised the jurisdiction after complying with the the mandatory provisions of section 202 Cr.P.C. In the present case two witnesses were examined under sections 202 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present case is not a case of no inquiry or no investigation as mandated by section 202 Cr.P.C.
22. The cases of Smt. Parvinder Kaur and another (Supra) and Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya (Supra) have also not taken into consideration the Apex Court judgment in Vijay Dhanuka etc. (Supra) which clearly lays down that in the inquiry envisaged under section 202 Cr.P.C. the witnesses are examined. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided by section 202 of the Code.
23. It may be open for the Magistrate to put necessary questions to the witnesses and also to the complainant like identity of accused acquaintance of complainant and witnesses with the accused, their relationship, etc, in holding inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., but if he does not hold inquiry in that particular manner it would not vitiate the order of summoning, in as much as, the object of the inquiry is only for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and at this stage the Magistrate is not holding any trial. He is holding an "inquiry" which means an inquiry other than trial. However, the order of the Magistrate must indicate that he has made inquiry and on such inquiry he is prima facie satisfied that a case for summoning is made out.
24. In view of the above, the case of Smt. Parvinder Kaur and another (Supra) and Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya (Supra) are of no help to the applicants.
25. In the case of S.K. Bhowmik (Supra) also no inquiry or investigation was held and the process was issued in violation of the mandatory requirement of section 202 Cr.P.C. In that case the complaint was filed earlier to the amendment made in section 202 Cr.P.C which provision made inquiry or investigation mandatory in a case where the accused resided outside the area of jurisdiction of concerned Magistrate. The evidence was also recorded prior to such amendment, but after the amendment came into effect no inquiry was held by the Magistrate although the amendment had come into force before issuing of process. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the examination of the complainant and the witnesses as envisaged under section 200 Cr.P.C could not be equated or be a substitute for the inquiry/investigation required under section 202 Cr.P.C. It was held that the process which was issued was on the basis of the examination of the complainant and witnesses CW-2 made under section 200 Cr.P.C., which was done much prior to the date of the amendment of section 202 Cr.P.C. No inquiry/investigation was held as required under section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, this court finds that in the case of S.K. Bhowmik (Supra) any inquiry or investigation as mandated by section 202 Cr.P.C. was not held. The case of S.K. Bhowmik (Supra) is also of no help to the applicants.
26. In the present case the statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. It is also admitted to the applicants vide para no. 6 of the affidavit that the statements of PW-1 Sanjay Jaiswal and PW-2 Santosh Saxena were recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. by the court concerned. The statement of the complainant was recorded on 27.04.2019 and the statement of PW-2 was recorded on 10.05.2019. Therefore, there is also time gap in recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses.
27. This Court is therefore, not convinced with the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that any inquiry as contemplated by section 202 Cr.P.C. was not conducted by the learned Magistrate. This ground of challenge to the summoning order therefore, fails.
28. This Court, however, finds that there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and litigation are also pending between them. Prima facie, the dispute is of matrimonial nature or outcome of matrimonial dispute. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the criminal proceedings are malicious and to wreck vengeance cannot be rejected at the out right in the back ground of the facts of the present case. Prima facie, the submission that there are contradictions in the statements of complainant and the witnesses also appear to have some substance. The fair chances of resolution of matrimonial dispute through the process of mediation, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants, cannot be ruled out.
29. Matter requires consideration, after affording opportunity of hearing to opposite party no. 2.
30. Learned A.G.A has already accepted notice on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1.
31. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2. He may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.
32. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
33. List this case on 09.12.2020 in the additional cause list.
34. On the next date of listing opposite party no. 2 may also intimate the Court his willingness for mediation proceeding for resolution of the dispute.
35. As an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid complaint case.
Order Date :- 15.10.2020 Vikram