Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) PURSUANT to the order dated 9.12.2011 both the opposite parties are present. They have filed separate affidavits. In the affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 1 the defence taken is that upon submission of the charge sheet, in a routine manner the cognizance was taken and direction for registering the case was passed on 28.03.2011. It is further submitted that at the time when the charge sheet was submitted it was not brought to his notice that there was already an interim order of the Division Bench of the High Court not only restraining the arrest of the applicants but further directing that the Investigating Officer shall not submit police report. For this act apology has been tendered on account of ignorance. It has further been submitted that the opposite party No. 1 has since been transferred from Mainpuri and is presently posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rai Bareilly. The new incumbent on the post of C.J.M., Mainpuri is Sri A.K. Mall. It has also been submitted that pursuant to the registering of the case, no coercive action till date has been taken against the applicants.
(2.) THE stand taken by the opposite party No. 2 is that she only read that part of the order of the Division Bench which provided stay of the arrest of the applicants but the other direction restraining the Investigating Officer from submitting the police report during pendency of the writ petition, was not noticed or read by her and on the ground of said bonafide mistake the charge sheet was submitted. The affidavit further tenders unconditional and unqualified apology for such disobedience which was not willful or intentional. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for and is allowed two weeks time to file reply to the affidavits filed today. Further as the charge sheet which has been submitted was in the teeth of the interim order passed by the Division Bench, and further as the matter between the parties is alleged to have already been amicably settled, before the Mediation Centre on 23.4.2011, it would be appropriate that the Investigating Officer may submit an appropriate report to the Court concerned highlighting such facts with a request to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law so that there is no further disobedience. This exercise may be undertaken by the Investigating Officer (the opposite party No. 2) and the Court concerned will take an appropriate decision in the light of the aforesaid facts and such material which may be placed. A month's time is allowed for the said purpose. List.on 14.2.2012. On the said date the opposite party No. 2 shall again remain present. The personal appearance of the opposite party No. 1 is exempted till further orders of this Court.;