IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34034 of 2007 BIBI JAMILA KHATOON, WIFE OF MD. ARIF, D/O LATE SHAHABUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE: TELPUR, P.S. LAURIYA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE BASWARIA, P.S. LAURIYA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN……………………………………………….......PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MD. ARIF, SON OF LATE NARUL HASSAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TELPUR, P.S. LAURIYA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate. ----------------- 3. 17.11.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for O.P. No.2. This application is for quashing of order dated 12.4.2007 passed in Case No.15M of 1982 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran at Bettiah, whereby he has refused to issue distress warrant against O.P. No.2. On perusal of the impugned order dated 12.4.2007, it appears that there had been an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties in respect of the maintenance payable to the petitioner herein and the punches who settled the dispute had sworn affidavit to the effect that the balance amount of Rs.35000/- had been paid by O.P. No.2, Md. Arif, to the petitioner herein, Bibi Jamila Khatoon, in presence of her maternal uncle Jamil Saheb who - 2 - subsequently expired. It is also apparent from the said order that the learned court below had relied on the order dated 7th of August, 1997 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.322 of 1989, wherein their Lordships ordered as follows: “The learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the parties have settled the dispute outside the Court. Therefore, the appeal is not pressed and is accordingly dismissed.” What the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to raise before me is available in paragraph-8 of the application which is quoted hereunder: “That it is relevant to state here that the petitioner had no knowledge about the filing/or pendency of the said Cr. Appeal no.328/89 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, even no any point of time, any notice was served upon the petitioner from the Hon’ble Court, even she was also not volentary appeared or executed any vakalatnama for appointing her an Advocate for contesting the said Cri. Appeal. The petitioner even not intered into any compromise with the Opp. party no.2. But despite of these fact, the Opp. Party no.2 given statement before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that parties have settled the dispute outside the court and in view of the statement of Opp. Party no.2, the said appeal was ordered to be not pressed and was accordingly dismissed on 7.8.97. The said order was dully transmitted to S.D.J.M., Bagaha on 9.9.07 by the Asstt. Registrar, Supreme Court.” Apparently, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to - 3 - impress that a fraud had been played on his client before the Supreme Court as she neither had any knowledge of the proceeding nor any notice was sent to her nor she did appoint or execute any vakalatnama in favour of any lawyer and that she had not entered into any compromise with Md. Arif. It further appears that after the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court had been passed the petitioner herein sought to agitate the matter before the Family Court, West Champaran by filing a petition on 28.4.2006, i.e., almost after 9 years for realization of Rs.71,550/ + Rs.2250/- . It is unfortunate that the petitioner has sought to bring to revive an absolutely dead matter after 9 years and that too by pleading before the Family Court and this Court that a fraud had been played on her before the Apex Court. Had she been vigilant and alive to the situation she would have moved at the appropriate time before the appropriate forum instead of rushing to the Family Court and this Court. Apparently, there is no merit in this application which appears to be frivolous, malicious and vexatious in nature. The same is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/- payable to O.P. No.2. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)