Rajbir And Another vs Rajni on 2 November, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajbir And Another vs Rajni on 2 November, 2011

Bench: Ranjit Singh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                             Crl. Misc. No. M- 22209 of 2010
                             Date of decision: 02.11.2011

Rajbir and another                                   ...Petitioners

                       Versus

Rajni                                                ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

Present:   Mr. N.S. Panwar, Advocate
           for the petitioners.

           Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate
           for the respondent.

             *****

RANJIT SINGH J.

The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 08.07.2010 (Annexure P-

5) and order dated 11.04.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

Respondent-Rajni, who is widow of Sandeep Kumar son of Rajbir Singh-petitioner had filed an application before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On the basis of this complaint, the impugned order, Annexure P-4, was passed by the Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay sum of ` 2000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. The Court also directed the petitioners to return the dowry articles and in this regard, the SHO was directed to accompany the respondent to break open the lock and handed over the dowry articles to the respondent. Besides the petitioner was further restrained from interfering and Crl. Misc. No. M- 22209 of 2010 -2- transferring the plot situated in Sonepat which the petitioners had agreed to transfer on the name of the respondent-Rajni on the basis of Panchayati compromise.

The petitioner impugned this order before the Sessions Court, who has upheld the order passed by the Magistrate. All the submissions made in detail have been considered. Primarily, the Sessions Court had relied upon the compromise whereby the petitioner had voluntarily agreed to give 150 square yards plot situated at Sonepat. The said compromise was reduced into writing before the Panchayat. Copy of the compromise has not been placed on record. On being asked by the Court, copy of compromise was shown during the course of arguments and the same has been read over. It clearly shows that the petitioner had agreed to transfer his 150 square yards plot besides other commitments. Now the petitioners are cleverly wanting to wriggle out of this commitment made in the compromise.

Since the petitioners are not being fair in seeking the relief, they will not deserve consideration. Otherwise also, the submissions are considered well by both the Courts on merits and have rightly passed the impugned order, which would not call for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

November 02, 2011                               ( RANJIT SINGH )
rts                                                  JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court