JOHN WILLIAM ALMEIDA Vs. SHOBHA NEE JANE ALMEIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Petitioner. The grievance of the Petitioner in this contempt petition is that the Respondent has breached the undertakings given by her before this Court on 28.4.1994 and 18th January, 1995. The undertaking, which according to the Petitioner, has been breached by Respondent is her omission to withdraw the criminal complaints filed by her against the Petitioner.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that two complaints came to be filed by the Respondent, 1 Complaint C.R. No.162 of 1994 for the offences under Sec.506 Part II and Sec.323 Indian Penal Code, and, 2 Complaint C.R. No.304 of 94 under Sec.498-A, 506 Part II and 406 of IPC. The learned counsel for the Petitioner candidly admitted that in Complaint C.A. No.162 of 94, the Petition as been discharged and the said complaint is no longer pending. It is also candidly admitted by the learned counsel for Petitioner that as regards other Complaint C.R. No.304 of 94 for the offences punishable under Sec.498A and 506 Part II, the Petitioner has been discharged. However, the said complaint C.R. No.304 of 94 is pending against the Petitioner for the offence under Sec.406 IPC. It is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 28.4.94 when this Court passed the order, Complaint C.R. No.304/94 was only filed under Sec.498A and 506 IPC and complaint was not under Sec.406 IPC and later on in her statement the Respondent sought to take out offence against the Petitioner under Sec.406 IPC. If that be so on its face, it cannot be said that the Respondent has disobeyed the undertaking or the order of this Court dated 28.4.94. Moreover, in the order dated 28.4.94, it is clearly recorded that the Respondent undertakes to withdraw all criminal complaints except the complaint which deals with jewellery having been taken away by Petitioner by force. Obviously, therefore, the Respondent did not undertake to withdraw the complaint with reference to the offence punishable under Sec.406 of IPC. In the order dated 18th January, 95 on behalf of Respondent it was reiterated that as regards the complaints filed by her referred to in the order dated 28.4.94, the same would be withdrawn and if necessary a letter would be written to the concerned police station. Complaint C.R. No.162 of 94 has already been decided and in that case Petitioner has been discharged and it is no longer pending. Similarly Complaint C.R. No.304 of 94, the Petitioner has been discharged for the offence under Sec.498A and 506 Part II IPC. As regards the offence relating to jewellery no undertaking was given by Respondent in the said complaint and, therefore, continuation of Com. C.R. No.304/94 under Sec.406 IPC cannot be said to be breach of the undertaking by the Respondent.