Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2738 of 2018 Revisionist :- Smt. Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 24.7.2018, passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2018 (Dhanpal Palwar Vs. State of U.P. and Others), under sections 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra, whereby the effect and operation of the order dated 12.7.2018 passed by the Magistrate, has been stayed.
From the perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the Court below has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the compelling facts and circumstances. The apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav & another Vs. Raja Buland Sugar Company Ltd. Rampur & others, reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484 has observed as follows in paragraph 3 of the Judgement:-
"3. We heard Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned Counsel for the appellants, and the respondents appeared by Caveat through Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not inclined to examine any contention on merits at present, but we would like to notice of the emerging situation if the operation of the order under appeal is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal. If the F.
A.F.O. is allowed, obviously Mool Chand Yadav would be entitled to continue in possession. Now, if the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand would have to vacate the room and handover the possession to the respondents in obedience to the Court's order. We are in full agreement with Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned advocate for respondents, that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Manoj Swarup may be wholly right in submitting that there is intentional flouting of the" Court's order. We are not interdicting that finding. But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted. Previous history of litigation cannot be overlooked. And it is not seriously disputed that the whole of the building, Hari Bhawan, except one room in dispute is in possession of the Corporation. We accordingly suspend the operation of the order dated 6th August 1982 directing the appellants to handover the possession of the room to the respondents till the disposal of the first appeal against that order pending in the High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Manoj Swarup requests that both the earlier and later Appeals should be heard together as early as possible, We order accordingly and request the High Court if it considers proper in its own discretion to hear both the appeals as expeditiously as possible in order to avoid the continuance of the boiling situation. The appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
In the light of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 24.7.2018, passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Agra.
Consequently, the present criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.9.2018 Arshad