COCP No. 500 of 2009. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.O.C.P. No. 500 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 17th November, 2009. Lt. Col. Sada Nand Arora & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate Versus S.S.Mago and others. Respondents through Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are father and son respectively against another set of family members, namely, respondents No. 1 to 4. It is alleged that the respondents are guilty of committing Contempt of Court on account of willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and decree dated 4.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in Civil Appeal No. RBT-313 of 2007 [Mrs. Nidhi & Ors. v Prashant Arora] based on the compromise dated 4.4.2008 [Annexure P-3] arrived at between the parties. [2]. The alleged matrimonial dispute between the second petitioner and the third respondent led to a spate of civil and criminal cases between the parties. Having seen the doors of various courts, they finally entered into a compromise on 4.4.2008 when Civil Appeal COCP No. 500 of 2009. ::-2-:: filed by respondent No. 3 and her family members against the present petitioners was pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. In terms of the compromise [Annexure P-3], the parties agreed:- “4. That all the litigations civil/criminal or of any other nature initiated by any of the parties to the present compromise or their family members, after this compromise, pending in any of the Court at any level, in view of this compromise, the parties to the compromise hereby agree not to proceed further in such litigation and hence forth both the parties shall make all out efforts to end such litigation as and when and where so ever it is so required. In view of this compromise, the parties to the compromise on their other family members shall not be entitled to institute any civil, criminal or any other proceedings against each other in any court/authority in future. 6. That the parties to this compromise, or their other family members in view of this compromise, undertake not to initiate any civil/criminal or any other proceedings against each other, in future. 8. That Nidhi, S.S.Mago, Komal Mago or any of their family member shall not prosecute any litigation against Prashant Arora, Lt. Col. S.N.Arora [Retd.] or any of their family members, wherever they are jointly and individually are facing prosecution with other persons. However, these persons shall be at liberty to prosecute the litigation against other person except Prashant Arora, Lt. Col. A.N.Arora [Retd] or any of their family member and vice versa”. [3]. Pursuant thereto, the appeal was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 4.4.2008 in the following terms [relevant extracts]:- COCP No. 500 of 2009. ::-3-:: “Shri S.S.Mago and Mrs. Komal Mago, appellants and S.S.Mago also as attorney of the appellant Nidhi, have also made their separate statements that they have arrived at compromise, Ex.C1 with their free will, consent and without undue influence and coercion and the same bears their signatures on their behalf as well as on behalf of their daughter, who is also cosening party in this compromise Ex.C1. Lt. Col. S.N.Arora [Retd.] Attorney of Prashant Arora respondent has also made a statement that the parties have arrived at a compromise Ex.C1 with their own free will, consent and without undue influence and coercion and the same bears his signatures on behalf of his son Prashant Arora. Both the parties have stated that they shall remain bound by this compromise Ex.C1. In view of the statements of the parties are recorded above and compromise Ex.C1, to which both the parties shall be bound, while setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.9.2006, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly in view of the compromise Ex.C1 and the marriage certificate No. 700 dated 2.6.1999 issued by the Registrar of Marriage, Karnal between Prashant Arora and Nidhi is declared non-existent, from its very inception. The compromise shall form part of decree sheet”. [4]. It is not in dispute that in furtherance of the compromise, most of civil and criminal cases between the parties have already been settled. Copies of those orders have also been placed on record. [5]. The petitioners, however, have initiated these contempt proceedings, inter-alia, alleging that in willful violation of the terms of compromise deed or the statements made before the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, the respondents are still COCP No. 500 of 2009. ::-4-:: pursuing three criminal cases, namely, [i] FIR No. 352 dated 17.5.2003, registered at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula, under Sections 498-A/406/506/323 IPC, in which the two petitioners, as well as their other family members/relative/friends are named as accused; [ii] FIR No. 189 dated 19.11.2007, registered at Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh, under Sections 228-A,499,500,120-B IPC and Sections 6 and 8 of Indecent Representation of Women Act; and [iii] FIR No. 192 dated 29.4.2008, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal, under Sections 341/342/211/120-B IPC and 58 of the NDPS Act. [6]. A show cause notice was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their reply/affidavit. [7]. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents in respect of the three cases may be summarized as follows:- [i] FIR No. 352 dated 17.5.2003, registered at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula, under Sections 498-A/406/506/323 IPC The respondents admit that the subject FIR is covered by the compromise deed dated 4.4.2008 and they have no objection against quashing/dropping of these criminal proceedings, provided that counter criminal proceedings initiated against them under Section 182 IPC are also quashed/dropped. [ii] FIR No. 189 dated 19.11.2007, registered at Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh, under Sections 228- A,499,500,120-B IPC and Sections 6 and 8 of Indecent Representation of Women Act; It is stated that the FIR is outcome of the telecasting/ displaying of a CD allegedly supplied by the petitioners to a TV Channel in which the petitioners have been implicated as co-accused COCP No. 500 of 2009. ::-5-:: along with the Reporter[s] and Proprietor[s] of the T.V.Channel. The respondents have averred that if the allegations are withdrawn against the petitioners, the entire prosecution case including against the other accused persons is likely to collapse, therefore, the said criminal case was never made a part of the compromise dated 4.4.2008 as is evident from clause [8] of the compromise deed, reproduced above. [iii] FIR No. 192 dated 29.4.2008, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal, under Sections 341/342/211/120-B IPC and 58 of the NDPS Act. The respondents assert that the afore-stated FIR has been registered under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued vide order dated 25.3.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 545 of 2008 [Annexure R1/8] and the said FIR has been registered against a Police Officer, though their Lordships of the Supreme Court, having suspected some role played by petitioner No. 1, directions for investigation of that part have also been issued. [8]. In other words, the respondents' case is that there is no 'willful' or 'deliberate' disobedience by them of the undertaking given/ statement made before the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in the matter of two cases mentioned as Sr. No. [ii] and [iii] above. [9]. Counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that he does not press this petition nor claims any relief in the two cases arising out of [i] FIR No.189 dated 19.11.2007, registered at Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh, under Sections 228-A,499,500,120-B IPC read with Sections 6 and 8 of Indecent Representation of COCP No. 500 of 2009. ::-6-:: Women Act and, [ii] FIR No. 192 dated 29.4.2008, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal, under Sections 341/342/211/120-B IPC and 58 of the NDPS Act and that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievances qua these two cases, in accordance with law. Ordered accoridngly. [10]. So far as the case at Sr. No. [i], i.e., FIR No. 352 dated 17.5.2003, registered at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula, under Sections 498-A/406/506/323 IPC is concerned, counsel for the parties are ad-idem to move an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned to prepone the date of hearing where the respondent – complainant shall withdraw the objections filed by him and on such withdrawal of objections, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to accept the cancellation report and also to dismiss the proceedings initiated under Section 182 IPC. It is made clear that the FIR as well as the Calendar under Section 182 IPC shall be consigned to the record room simultaneously and shall not be revived at any stage at the instance of any one, be that may the complainant, accused or the prosecution. [11]. The parties are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, on 7.12.2009. [12]. With these directions and liberties the contempt proceedings are disposed of. Dasti. November 17, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE COCP No. 500 of 2009. ::-7-::