Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11149 of 2021 Applicant :- Dayanidhi Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Sushil Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohit Gautam
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. None for the respondents.
3. This Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 19.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No.192 of 2018 (Smt. Anju Sharma Vs. Dayanidhi Sharma), whereby the court concerned has rejected an Application for recall of the recovery warrants.
4. Sri Maurya, counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to an order dated 09.08.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.2608 of 2018, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"It is directed that revisionist shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within three weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of which Rs. 7,000/- would be paid to the opposite party no. 2 for appearance before the Mediation Centre.
Upon deposit aforesaid being made good, the Mediation Centre will issue notice to both the parties fixing an early date for appearance and further proceedings before the Centre.
The Mediation Centre will submit their report within two months from the date parties are required to first appear before the Centre. Thereafter the case shall be listed before appropriate Bench.
In the meanwhile, in case the revisionist deposits a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 with the Principal Judge, Family Court/FTC Court No. 1, Bareilly by the 10th of each succeeding month with effect from the date of order commencing 10th September, 2018, operation of the impugned order dated 08.05.2018 passed in Criminal Case No. 250 of 2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court/FTC Court No. 1, Bareilly shall remain stayed.
The trial court upon periodical deposit of maintenance made pursuant to this order by the applicant shall immediately release the same in favour of opposite party no. 2 without asking for any security.
In case of default in adherence to the aforesaid schedule of deposit or in making good the requisites in the account of the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the interim order granted above shall automatically stand vacated."
5. When Sri Maurya, counsel for the applicant is asked to update this Court about the status of mediation proceedings, he expresses his helplessness to give details of the progress of the mediation. He only submits that mediation was undertaken and is undergoing. No proceeding can continue for indefinite period. In the operating portion of the order quoted above, it is made clear that in case of default in adherence to the aforesaid scheduled of deposit, the interim order granted above shall automatically stand vacated.
6. Admittedly, there is a default on the part of the applicant. Therefore, interim order already stood vacated. Therefore, once interim order was vacated, there was no justification for the applicant's counsel to threaten the learned Family Court Judge with contempt proceedings as has been mentioned by the learned Family Court Judge in para-2 of the impugned order.
7. This tendency of misusing the orders of the High Court by giving them a twisted and coloured interpretation is dangerous to the judicial system. It is evident that the order passed by the revisional court is conditional order and, admittedly, there has been violation of the conditions of the order resulting in automatic vacation of stay granted in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the court below has not committed any illegality in refusing to entertain the application seeking recall of recovery of warrants against the applicant. Therefore, Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.9.2021 Ashutosh