- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Hardoi in revision no. 151 of 2013, whereby the learned lower court has dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 1, Hardoi in complaint case no. 537 of 2011 for summoning the accused petitioners for their trial under Sections 323, 498A, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D. P. Act.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have submitted that opposite party no. 2 is wife of the petitioner no.1. Their marriage was solemnized on 29.11.2009, after the marriage, opposite party no. 2 started quarrel to the petitioner because she want to live separately with petitioner no. 1 only on denial being angry, she has gone to her father's house. The petitioner has tried to bring back to her but she did not agree. The S.H.O. Kotwali Sahar investigate the matter and he found that no incident has been done by the petitioner. The petitioner is agreed to live with his wife but the father and the brother of opposite party no. 2 is not agree to send her. This is a matrimonial dispute which can be settled after the mediation. The petitioner has filed a case under section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, O.S. No. 326 of 2010 in which notices have been issued and ultimately above case was decreed in terms and compromise arrived at between the parties. Prior to passing of impugned judgment. The learned lower court below has not taken cognizance of the fact that above referred O.S. No. 325/2010 has been decided in the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties in which it was settled that all the pending litigation will be withdrawn by the parties. As such, impugned judgment and order is bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
(3.) OPPOSING above submissions, learned A.G.A. submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order and there is no occasion for interference in the impugned judgment. I have perused the material available on record which shows that the learned A.C.J.M. Hardoi has passed a summoning order dated 14.1.2011, under Sections 323, 498A and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act on the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of section 202 Cr.P.C. There was also injury report on the record as far as for decree of suit under section 9 of Conjugal Rights of Hindu Marriage Act has been decided on 05.07.2013 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Hardoi on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties and in which it was settled that all the pending litigation will be withdrawn by the parties have not been brought to the notice of the revisional court and there is no any pleadings regarding that in the petition that above decision was brought to the notice of the learned revisional court.;