MAHIMA SAVIN BANSAL Vs. SAVIN BANSAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The Appellant is aggrieved by the Order dated 16.10.2014 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2014 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, the writ Petitioners before the High Court, who sought for quashing of the FIR lodged by the Appellant herein against them, is under challenge in this appeal urging various legal contentions.

(2.) Mr. V.K. Gupta, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant questioned the correctness of the order impugned passed by the High Court and contends that having regard to the prayer made in the writ petition to quash the FIR registered against the private Respondents herein on the complaint lodged by the Appellant herein, the High Court has gravely erred in giving direction to the learned Magistrate directing that in the event of moving bail application by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, they shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and one surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. The said portion of the order is seriously questioned placing reliance upon the two judgments of this Court, namely, State of Gujarat v. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh and Ors., 2003 8 SCC 50,and Hema Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2014 4 SCC 453, particularly paragraphs 13, 21 and 22. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 also placed reliance on the very same judgment in justification of the direction given to the learned Magistrate by the High Court in exercise of its power Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant further contends that once the writ petition is disposed of by the High Court declining to quash the FIR registered against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the High Court in exercise of its power Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, giving the aforesaid direction to the learned Magistrate, as the same does not permit such action as the High Court finds no merit in the challenge, the writ petition will have to be dismissed and the question of granting further relief after disposal of the writ petition does not arise. Further, he places reliance, in support of the aforesaid submission that consequent upon disposal of the writ petition of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, the interim relief already granted to them would also go. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order passed by the High Court in exercise of its discretion arbitrarily and unreasonably, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction.