Charu v. Hunny

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 01.09.2025 Charu ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Hunny ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Shubham Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Nain, Advocate, Mr. Kartik, Advocate, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of proceedings against the respondent for disobedience of the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-53610-2023.

2.

Briefly the facts relevant to the present case are that the respondent herein applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court for Heinous Crime against Women, Hisar. The allegation in the FIR was that because of the demand of dowry and the complainant being taunted and harassed for bringing insufficient dowry, left the matrimonial home. Thereafter the respondent herein approached this Court by filing CRM-M-53610-2023 and vide order dated 19.10.2023 he was granted an interim protection subject to his joining the investigation. Yet another petition

being CRM-M-11144-2025 was filed by the respondent herein. On 04.04.2025 the following order was passed :

"Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 03.03.2025 is present in the Court today and has stated that he may be granted some time to re-think on the issue with regard to re-conciliation etc. with respondent No.2. On his request, adjourned to 07.04.2025.

To be taken up immediately after urgent cases. It is directed that the petitioner shall personally remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing. A copy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case."

3.

Vide order dated 07.04.2025 both the petitions (CRM-M53610-2023 & CRM-M-11144-2025) were dismissed as withdrawn and the interim protection granted vide order dated 19.10.2023 stood vacated. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that subsequently the respondent herein was arrested and he was later released on regular bail. Admittedly, a petition has been filed by the petitioner herein for cancellation of the regular bail which is also pending before this Court. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this is a clear case of contempt as the respondent herein did not appear before the Court despite the Court's direction passed on 04.04.2025 in CRM-M-536102023. 5.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the said order dated 04.04.2025 merged with the final order dated 07.04.2025

therefore, no contempt is made out.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7.

In the present case, interim order dated 04.04.2025 whereby the respondent herein was directed to remain present in Court merged with the final order dated 07.04.2025 whereby the respondent herein withdrew both the petitions (CRM-M-53610-2023 & CRM-M-11144-2025) and the interim order passed in favour of the respondent was vacated. Thereafter, the respondent herein was admittedly arrested and subsequently was released on regular bail. The grant of regular bail has also been challenged inasmuch as the petitioner herein has filed a petition for cancellation of regular bail which is pending before this Court.

8.

In view of the above, no contempt is made out. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

01.09.2025 ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO