Vivek MalwA. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). and ors.

.....court commissioner to visit the premises and inform the court "if after the de-sealing of the premises on 15th february 2010 there was any activity undertaken by the petitioner for running its office in the premises." without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner, he submits that the petitioner is not opposed to the structures being removed. once the premises were de-sealed, the possession of the premises had necessarily to be handed back to the petitioner. the petitioner voluntarily gave up possession of the premises. the reply dated 1st december 2005 of the petitioner to the said notice, admitted that the petitioner had allowed the mbicem to use the premises in question. the letter dated 7th september 2006 in fact refers to the l&dos letter dated 5th september 2006. this led to the petitioner writing on 28th may 2007 that it would remove the breaches within 15 days of the de-sealing of the premises. it is only by the letter dated 28th may 2007 that the petitioner informed the mcd as under: the premises be de- sealed on 12th february 2010 when asi and l&do officers are present." it appears, therefore, that it was with the full knowledge of the petitioner that de-sealing of the premises took place in the presence of the petitioner. further, the petitioner appears to have consented to the de- sealing of the above premises in the aforementioned manner. there was no obligation on the l&do to put the petitioner back in possession when the mc de-sealed the premises on 15th february 2010......advocate. 2. the argument substantially is that fraught relation emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide case crime no.362 of 2010 under sections 498-a, 452, 323, 504, 506, 307 and 406 i.p.c. and section 3/4 of dowry prohibition act p.s. 3. nehtaur, district bijnor. having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, we have a feeling that court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. the matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties. 4. while referring the matter to mediation centre with the consent of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of rs.10,000/- with the mediation centre by way of bank draft drawn in favour of mediation centre, high court, allahabad, out of which a sum of rs.8000/- shall be payable to the respondent no.3, victim and the remaining amount shall be kept for being utilised by the mediation centre. the amount aforesaid, it is further directed, shall be paid over to the respondent no.3 on her appearing before the mediation centre on the date fixed. the amount aforesaid, it may be clarified, are meant to meet expenses to be incurred for attending mediation sessions at allahabad for the respondent no.3 and the person escorting her. 5. the office upon deposit of the bank draft shall issue notice within one week to the respondent no.3, i.e the wife calling upon her to appear in the mediation centre at allahabad high court on a date to beindicated in the said notice stating therein that the bank draft deposited by the petitioners shall be delivered in the mediation centre on the date fixed. the said notice shall be served upon respondent no.3 through c.j.m concerned. it needs hardly be said that both the parties shall appear either on the date.....