SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. DHARMARADDI VENKATEARADDI RANGANNAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners.

(2.) The Petitioners, who are accused persons, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court for quashing their prosecution under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code apart from Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A Division Bench of the High Court comprising of M. C. Jain and M. Chaudhary, JJ. did not find any ground for quashing the prosecution, but adopted a novel procedure and directed that the accused persons shall not be arrested in the case till the conclusion of trial provided they pay interim amount of compensation to the victim Smt. Seema Mishra, Respondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per month. Against the said order, the prosecution party has not moved this Court ; rather, the accused persons have moved this Court challenging the imposition of condition directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000 per month by way of interim compensation to the victim Smt. Seema Mishra.

(3.) During the course of arguments, when we indicated to learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that the High Court was not justified in giving direction to the trial court to the effect that the accused persons would not be arrested during the pendency of the trial, learned Counsel made a prayer for withdrawal of the petition. For the present, we do not find any reason to permit such withdrawal. In our view, it is a fit case to exercise suo motu powers and issue notice to the accused persons to show cause as to why the impugned order of the High Court to the effect that the accused persons shall not be arrested during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 17 of 2005, be not set aside.