CRM-M No. 22263 of 2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 22263 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: June 01, 2018.
RITU JAGLAN …… PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ANR. …… RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok S.Chaudhary, Addl.AG, Haryana.
Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2
*****
LISA GILL, J.
The petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 15.05.2018
(Annexure P-4) in case FIR No.1013, dated 07.12.2013 under Sections 323, 494,
354, 498-A, 406, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal,
whereby permission has been afforded to respondent No. 2 to go to United
Kingdom for treatment of his wife till 12.08.2018 for a period of two months
subject to furnishing a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in the shape of an FDR.
Respondent No.2 is an accused in FIR No. 1013 dated 07.12.2013,
under Sections 323, 494, 498A, 354 and 506 IPC. He is the father-in-law of the
petitioner.
It is averred that CRM-M-2636-2016 has been filed by respondent
No. 2 and his son-Dr. Satvinder Singh Choudhary (husband of the petitioner) for
1 of 4
07-07-2018 23:08:23 :::
CRM-M No. 22263 of 2018 2
quashing of the aforementioned FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom. In the said petition the learned trial Court was directed to adjourn the
case beyond the date fixed in the said petition. Another petition bearing No.
CRM-M-38882-2016 has been filed by the present petitioner for quashing of the
proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2
It is contended that there is no requirement of the petitioner
accompanying his wife (not an accused in the FIR) aged 70 years in United
Kingdom in connection with her treatment as two of their sons are already in
United Kingdom and can very well look after her. It is thus prayed that this
petition be allowed.
It is relevant to note that the petitioner and son of respondent No. 2
were directed to remain present in Court to explore the possibility of an amicable
resolution of the dispute. The entire dispute between the couple could however,
not be settled, at this stage.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent
No. 2 is delaying the proceedings in the matter. Arguments are not being
addressed in CRM-M-2636-2016 due to the interim order in their favour.
Moreover, an affidavit by way of evidence has been tendered in proceedings
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence by respondent No. 2
who is yet to be cross-examined. The said matter is listed before the trial Court
on 25.07.2018. It is informed that the son of respondent No. 2 is to be cross-
examined on 25.07.2018.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has refuted the allegations.
Respondent No.2, it is submitted is a retired XEN from the Department of
2 of 4
07-07-2018 23:08:23 :::
CRM-M No. 22263 of 2018 3
Irrigation in the State of Haryana and is a responsible senior citizen. It is stated
that no such affidavit has been tendered before the learned trial Court in the
proceedings as above. An affidavit dated 29.05.2018 of respondent No.2 has been
furnished in Court. Specific averments in this respect have been made in para 3 of
the affidavit dated 29.05.2018, which is taken on record subject to just
exceptions.
It is further submitted that respondent No.2 shall not seek an
adjournment in any of the proceedings which are pending between the parties. He
undertakes that no adjournment whatsoever shall be sought by him or his counsel
in CRM-M-2636-2016, which is fixed for 08.08.2018. It is further undertaken
that respondent No. 2 shall not raise any objection whatsoever to any of the
proceedings pending between the parties on account of his absence. He would not
raise objection to any evidence being led in this absence though in presence of his
counsel. Respondent No.2, it is urged merely wishes to take his wife to United
Kingdom for seeking better treatment of his wife who is an illiterate lady
suffering from various problems. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is
receiving pension from the department. There is no question of his fleeing the
country. FDR of Rs.5 lakhs stands deposited before the learned trial court on
18.05.2018. It is thus prayed that he should be permitted to accompany his wife
to United Kingdom till 12.08.2018.
The petitioner, duly identified by her counsel, is present in Court.
She states that in view of the specific undertaking of respondent No.2 in not
stalling any of the pending proceedings between the parties, she would not have
any objection in case respondent No. 2 is permitted to go to United Kingdom for
3 of 4
07-07-2018 23:08:23 :::
CRM-M No. 22263 of 2018 4
the purpose of the treatment of his wife till 12.08.2018.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and the stand of the
petitioner, respondent No.2 is permitted to travel to United Kingdom alongwith
his ailing wife till 12.08.2018 in terms of order dated 15.05.2018. It is however
directed that in case respondent No. 2 does not return till 12.08.2018, the amount
of Rs.5 lakhs deposited with the learned trial Court on 18.05.2018 in terms of
order dated 15.05.2018 shall be released to the petitioner. The said amount shall
not count towards any maintenance or any other claim which she may have
towards her husband and respondent No.2.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(LISA GILL)
June 01, 2018 JUDGE
jyoti-3
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
07-07-2018 23:08:23 :::
