Ghanshyam, and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[s. muralidhar, j.] - societies registration act, 1860 - the petitioner states that on 26th november 1941, the governor general of india in council allotted the premises in question to the petitioner and executed a perpetual lease deed. the premises in question were inspected on 4th june 2001 by the l&do and by a letter dated 18th june 2001 the l&do notified the petitioner of certain breaches on account of misuse and unauthorized constructions. the petitioner was asked to remedy the breaches within 30 days. on 27th december 2001, the petitioner addressed another letter to the l&do furnishing a cloth mounted plan as required by a letter dated 12th november 2001. by a letter dated 8th november 2005, the l&do informed the petitioner that the premises in question had been inspected on 26th november 2005 and the following misuses were noted: the petitioner was asked to remove the breaches within 30 days. intach vacated the premises in 1999. the petitioner assured the mcd that it would get the premises vacated from mbicem by 30th june 2007. the petitioner prayed that the premises be de-sealed. the petitioner reiterated this request by a separate letter dated 28th may 2007 addressed to the mcd. 14. a request for de-sealing was again made by the petitioner on 22nd june 2007. two reminders dated 29th june 2007 and 1st august 2007 were sent to the moud requesting for de-sealing of the premises. the petitioner states that it thereafter learnt that the premises in question were allotted to the asi, respondent no. 3. the mc de-sealed the premises on 15th february 2010. on 26th february 2010, a statement was made before this court by counsel for the petitioner that after the premises were de-sealed by the mc "the petitioner resumed possession of the premises and has been running its office." at the hearing on 13th may 2010, the respondents disputed that the petitioner had resumed possession after the de-sealing of the premises. with the counsel for the petitioner contesting the position, this court appointed a 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 2010.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned additional government advocate. 2. the argument substantially is that fraught relation emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide f.i.r. which was registered at case crime no.681 of 2010, under sections 498-a, 323, 504, 506 i.p.c. and section 3/4 dowry prohibition act, p.s. doodhayein, district sant kabir nagar. 3. 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 victim, smt. malti devi, the niece of respondent no.4 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 smt. malti devi, the niece of respondent no.4 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 smt. malti devi, the niece of respondent no.4 and the person escorting her. the office upon deposit of the bank draft shall issue notice within one week to smt. malti devi, the niece of respondent no.4, i.e the wifecalling upon her to appear in the mediation centre at allahabad high court on a date to be indicated 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 smt. malti devi, the niece of respondent no.4 through c.j.m concerned. it needs hardly be said that both the parties shall appear either on the date fixed or on a future date as may be agreed before the mediation centre for reconciliation. 5. the centre shall submit a report within one month from the date of parties appearing before it for reconciliation. the case shall be listed in the first week of october, 2010 along with report of mediation centre. in the meanwhile, the arrest of the petitioners in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed. 6. it may be made clear that in case, there occurs default by the petitioners either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the mediation centre on the date or dates fixed, the interim order staying arrest shall cease to be operative and the mediation centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the bench concerned for passing appropriate order in the matter. 7. it may be clarified that the case will not be treated as tied up to this bench shall be listed before the appropriate bench. copy of this order will not be issued unless steps are taken.

Judgment:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. The argument substantially is that fraught relation emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide F.I.R. which was registered at Case Crime No.681 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Doodhayein, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

3. 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 victim, Smt. Malti Devi, the niece of respondent no.4 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 Smt. Malti Devi, the niece of respondent no.4 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 Smt. Malti Devi, the niece of respondent no.4 and the person escorting her. The office upon deposit of the Bank draft shall issue notice within one week to Smt. Malti Devi, the niece of respondent no.4, i.e the wifecalling upon her to appear in the Mediation Centre at Allahabad High Court on a date to be indicated 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 Smt. Malti Devi, the niece of respondent no.4 through C.J.M concerned. It needs hardly be said that both the parties shall appear either on the date fixed or on a future date as may be agreed before the Mediation Centre for reconciliation.

5. The Centre shall submit a report within one month from the date of parties appearing before it for reconciliation. The case shall be listed in the first week of October, 2010 along with report of Mediation Centre. In the meanwhile, the arrest of the petitioners in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed.

6. It may be made clear that in case, there occurs default by the petitioners either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date or dates fixed, the interim order staying arrest shall cease to be operative and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the Bench concerned for passing appropriate order in the matter.

7. It may be clarified that the case will not be treated as tied up to this Bench shall be listed before the appropriate Bench. Copy of this order will not be issued unless steps are taken.