Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
Under challenge in the instant writ petition is the FIR relating to Case Crime No.174 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.
We have gone through the contents of FIR as well as other documents annexed thereto.
Petitioner no.1 happens to be the husband of opposite party no.4 Smt. Baubina Dass. The allegation with respect to maltreatment and harassment has been alleged by opposite party no.4 against her in-laws.
Argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is nothing serious in the FIR which prohibits the parties in reconciling the matter if chance is taken for sending it to the Mediation Centre. It has further been asserted that the entire family has been roped without there being any justification or valid reason.
There seems substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if a chance is taken by sending the matter to the Mediation Centre, the parties may settle the dispute amicably.
Accordingly, we direct that the notice be issued to the opposite party no.4 through Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for her appearance before this Court on 6.7.2010 to apprise this Court as to whether she is agreeable for sending the matter to the Mediation Centre or not. Petitioner no.1 is also directed to appear before this Court on the next date.
List/put up on 6.7.2010.
However, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case crime number till 6.7.2010.
We further direct that the petitioners shall deposit Rs.8,000/- in this Court within a period of one week from today, out of which Rs.6,000/- shall be paid to Smt. Baubina Dass, opposite party no.4 on her appearance before the Mediation Centre and Rs.2,000/- shall be deposited in the account of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. It is clarified that if the petitioners fail to deposit the aforesaid amount within the time as directed above, the benefit of this order would not be available to the petitioners.
Order Date :- 22.6.2010 Tripathi