THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7288 of 2008 DATE: 23-03-2011 Between: Donda Ananthi .. Petitioner And Donda Shankaramma and 2 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7288 of 2008 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the docket order in Crl.M.P.No.662 of 2008 in M.C.No.2 of 2008 dated 13.10.2008 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Luxettipet. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the Maintenance Case was posted on 25.08.2008 and on that day the petitioner-respondent did not attend the Court, for which he was set ex parte. An application in Crl.M.P.No.662 of 2008 in M.C.No.2 of 2008 under Section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C. was filed on 25.08.2008. After hearing both sides on 13.10.2008 the learned Magistrate allowed the petition and set aside the ex parte order on the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.3,000/- on the next date of hearing i.e. on 13.11.2008. After passing the said order, the learned Magistrate said to have asked the petitioner to pay the amount to the respondents. As the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the amount, he was set ex parte without giving further time and posted the case to 13.11.2008. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the order of the lower Court. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Luxettipet? The impugned order dated 13.10.2008 reads that the petition filed under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. is allowed and ex parte order dated 25.08.2008 is set aside with a condition to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent on the next date of hearing. The sum and substance of the order is that the petitioner in the Crl.M.P.No.662 of 2008 in M.C.No.2 of 2008 has to pay Rs.3,000/- on the next date of hearing but not on 13.10.2008. If we see the docket order dt.06.10.2008, the learned Magistrate allowed the said petition with a condition to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent on the next date of hearing. The next date of hearing is 13.10.2008. The docket order dated 13.10.2008 is as under: “Petitioner and respondent called present. The respondent has to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioners as per orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.662/2008 in M.C.No.2/2008. Today the respondent stated that he is not in a position to pay the amount. Hence, the respondent set ex parte. For ex parte evidence of the petitioners call on 13.11.2008. These orders are self-contradictory without any meaning. When once the Court applies its mind and passed conditional order, tha conditional order to be complied with in the first instance and if any failure the result follows as per the conditional order. In the present case on hand, the petitioner-respondent has to comply the earlier orders of the lower Court dated 06.10.2008 but the same was not complied with. When we see the impugned order, there is no recital about the earlier docket order dated 06.10.2008. Therefore, the conditional order passed by the learned Magistrate, on 13.10.2008 setting aside the ex parte order and directing the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- on the next date of hearing i.e. on 13.10.2008 without giving reasonable opportunity and without waiting for the next date setting the petitioner ex parte on 13.10.2008 is against the order passed on 13.10.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.662 of 2008 in M.C.No.2 of 2008. On one hand, the learned Magistrate directing to pay Rs.3,000/- by next date of hearing and on other hand, setting ex parte on 13.10.2008 is erroneous, is against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate in setting aside ex parte order is ex facie bad and illegal and, therefore, liable to be set aside. However, during the course of arguments, it is represented by both the learned counsels that the orders passed by the lower Court will be complied with, if a reasonable opportunity is given to the petitioner. While taking into consideration the representation made by the learned petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner’s counsel is informed to comply with the direction of the lower Court while depositing Rs.3,000/- as ordered under docket order dated 06.10.2008 within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With this observation, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 23-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7288 of 2008 DATE: 23-03-2011 MR