Permission to go abroad

Non-Resident Indians (NRI) need permission to go abroad during dependency of a criminal trial. If First Information Report (FIR) has been registered against Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and trial ensues against him, he will need permission of the court to go abroad. Procedure to get permission to go abroad starts with filing an application in the trial court for exemption from personal appearance along with a prayer for permission to go abroad for a specific time period or till the time the court requires the accused to be present before it. The court then issues notice to the public prosecutor who files a reply. Generally the reply is that the permission to go abroad or exemption from personal appearance in the court should not be allowed because the person may not return to India after going abroad. Trial courts therefore generally reject the application to go abroad. Then, revision is filed in sessions court. If the session court also refuses to give relief to the accused, petition under section 482 is filed before High Court. It may be noted that for all practical aspects, High Court is the last court of hearing in such cases. At that point the case becomes very critical because in Supreme Court the probability of failure is 99.99% and of the success is only 0.01%.

There are exceptional circumstances in which an application for permission to go abroad can be made directly in the High Court. However such direct applications and High Court can only be handled by experts in criminal law. In case such applications succeed, a person may be able to go abroad within a single day of the passing of the order.

Important judgments for permission to go abroad are:-

Chandraswamy v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1996(36) DRJ 137

JUDGMENT
A.K. Srivastava, J. –

This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation for recalling order dated 4.9.1995 of this Court.

2. By the aforesaid order dated 4.9.95 Chandraswami was granted permission subject to certain conditions to go abroad for a period of six months w.e.f. 6.9.95. The need for such permission was as follows;

3. The Central Bureau of Investigation received a complaint from one Lakhubhai Pathak against Chandraswami and K.N. Aggarwal. Consequently a case was registered against them as Fir No. RC- 1(S)/88/S.I.U. (ix) under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code. Chandraswami was arrested. He moved a petition for bail before the concerned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail subject to certain conduction’s. One of the conditions was that Chandraswami was not to leave the country except with a prior written permission of the Court and a prior intimation to that effect sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Thereafter, when Chandraswami wished to go abroad he moved a petition before the Magistrate for being permitted to go abroad but his prayer was refused. Feeling aggrieved with that order Chandraswami moved to the High Courtier permission to go abroad. That petition was registered as Crl.M.(M) No.447/88. It was disposed of on 4.8.88 by H.C. Goel,J. and Chandraswami was granted permission to go abroad subject to certain conditions. Thereafter, from time to time that permission was extended subject to certain terms and conditions. The last order of such extention is dated 4.9.95 which is now being sought to be recalled by the C.B.I.

4. It may, however, be mentioned that the aforesaid order dated 4.9.95 says that the Central Bureau of Investigation had no objection to the grant of permission to Chandraswami to go abroad for a period of six months subject to such conditions as the Court might impose.

5. The present petition for recall of the aforesaid order dated 4.9.95 is said to have been moved due to change in circumstances and the main grounds precisely are stated in paragraphs 8,9 and 11 thereof. These grounds may be reproduced as below:

“8.That as per the Order dated 28.12.88 and all other subsequent orders of this Hon’ble Court, Sh. Chandraswami was required to furnish the addresses of the places where he stayed during his visits abroad. However, Sh. Chandraswami was not complying with the directions of this Hon’ble Court even alter he was served Notice to this effect by the CBI. The matter was accordingly brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court on 2.3.95 and pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble Court Sh. Chandraswami filed only the names of the foreign airports visited by him in a bunch for the period Feb.’92 to Feb.’95 before this Hon’ble Court vide letter did. 6.3.95 with a copy to the CBI. This was followed by a similar incomplete statement furnished by letter dated . 27.9.95 by Sh. Chandraswami. Since the information supplied by Sh. Chandraswami was not in accordance with the directions of this Hon’ble Court, a letter dated . 29.9.95 was sent to Sh. Chandraswami seeking complete and updated statement in compliance of the Order of this Hon’ble Court. Sh. Chandraswami has not responded and complied with the directions of this Hon’ble Court so far.

The above would show that Chandraswami has scant regard for the Law of the land and has been acting in flagrant violation of the Order of this Hon’ble Court obviously for some ulterior motive.

9. That the Central Bureau of Investigation has recently taken up the investigation of a case relating to murder of Sh. L.D. Arora, Deputy Collector of Customs. Allahabad, vide RC.10 (S)/95-SIU (V), SIC.II wherein the main culprit Mr. Om Prakash Srivastava @ Babloo Srivastava since apprehended by the Cbi had made disclosures to the effect that he not only stayed in the Ashram of Sh. Chandraswami but was also fronting for him in his various deals. The allegation of harbouring of criminals etc. by Sh. Chandraswami is being looked into by the Cbi, including the verification of statement of said Mr. Babloo. which also extends to other countries. Incidentally the name of said Mr. W.E. Miller had also figured in the disclosure of said Mr. Babloo although as “Early Mirror” of Canada . The process of verification of the statement of Babloo and the allegation of harbouring of criminals by Mr. Chandraswami is likely to take quite some time as the persons concerned are not readily available and/or not forthcoming to come-forward.

11. That for reasons mentioned in the fore going paras 9 & 10, the investigations by the Cbi would be hampered to a great extent in case Sh. Chandraswami is not available for questioning in India. Further he may temper with the evidence available in Usa, Canada and other countries, in case he visits abroad. Further it is apprehended that Mr. Chandraswami may not return back to India, after going abroad with a view to avoid and face the ongoing investigations.”
6. The non-applicant Chandraswami has not filed any written reply to this petition.

7. During the course of arguments certain facts were stated by the learned counsel for the C.B.I, which may be reproduced as.follows: (1) L.D. Arora, Deputy Collector of Customs was murdered on 24.3.93; (2) the investigation of the case was done by the C.B.I, and charge sheet was filed in the case on 27.9.94 in the Designated Court at Kanpur; (3) Om Prakash @ Babloo Srivastava after being apprehended made some disclosure statements from 2.9.95 onwards; (4) disclosure statements relate to five matters other than aforesaid RC- l(S)/88/S.I.U.(ix) in which Chandraswami has been granted permission to go abroad under the aforesaid orders dated 4.9.95: (5) Chandraswami has been interrogated by the C.B.I, on 16.9.95 and 18.9.95 in connection with the aforesaid disclosure statements made by Babloo Srivaslava relating to other criminal cases; (6) the Central Bureau of Investigation has not requested the Designated Court at Kanpur for permission to make further investigation -in the crime case relating to the murder of L.D. Arora, Deputy Collector of Customs, Allahabad; (7) the C.B.I, has not so far filed charge sheet in the case relating to the Fir lodged by Lakhubhai Pathak in the year 1988; (8) the passport of Chandraswami is presently with the C.B.I.; and (9) the C.B.I, does not have any evidence of tampering of evidence by Chandraswami in the cases under reference while in India or abroad.

8. Learned counsel for the C.B.I, says that the C.B.I, would be needing further six months time for interrogation of Chandraswami in the other Five criminal cases including the one relating to murder of L.D. Arora. He further submitted that in view of the gravity of the disclosure statements it is very much apprehended that in case Chandraswami is permitted to go abroad he may not come hack to this country and therefore the permission granted to the petitioner to go abroad for a period of six months by aforesaid order dated 4.9.95 may he recalled. He further submitted that a person who has scant regard for the Court should not he allowed to enjoy the fruits of the aforesaid order dated 4.9.95 because Chandraswami has not complied with some of I he directions of this Court.

9. It may be necessary to mention here the conditions which have been imposed by this Court while granting permission to Chandraswami to go abroad. On perusal of the orders dated 5.9.91 and 4.9.95 it would transpire that Chandraswami had to comply with the conditions imposed on him by orders of this Court dated 4.8.88, 10.10.88. 12.12.88 and 30.1.90. On the basis of the aforesaid orders, amongst the conditions imposed on the petitioner Chandraswami therein, some of them may be summarised as that: (1) he shall join investigation and shall furnish personal security in the sum of Rs.l lac. to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate; (2) he shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner; (3) he shall make himself available for investigation at New Delhi provided he is given ten days advance notice to that effect; (4) he shall keep the C.B.I, informed of the addresses and places where he goes to stay during his visit to abroad. This shall be done by the petitioner on every ten days basis.

10. Learned counsel for the C.B.I, admits that the C.B.I, does not have any evidence of tampering of evidence by Chandraswami in the cases under reference while in India or abroad. He. however, says that the C.B.I, has apprehension that Chandraswami may now do so. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the C.B.I. is regarding violation of one of the aforesaid conditions, that Chandraswami was to inform the Central Bureau of Investigation about the addresses and the places where he goes and slays during his visits abroad on every ten days basis.

11. The learned counsel for the non-applicant Chandraswami admits that there has been some technical lapse on the part of his client in this regard, but he vehemently urges that his client has no disregard for the Court and that he has almost regard for the Court.

12. He further contends that in spile of the fact that FIR- in the case was lodged in 1988, the C.B.I, has not been able to file charge sheet till date (i.e. 22.11.1995) and still the C.B.I, wants his client to remain in bondage and not to move around freely out of the country.

13. So far as the disclosure statements of Babloo Srivastava are concerned the learned counsel for the non-applicant Chandraswami argued that they relate to criminal matters other than the one in which his client has been granted permission to go abroad by the aforesaid order dated 4.9.95. He further says that his client was always available to the C.B.I, for interrogation and there has never been a cause of complaint that his client did not obey as per notice of CB.I. for his interrogation. According to him, if his client is to be interrogated in any other criminal matters that has nothing to do with the permission granted to his client under the aforesaid order dated 4.9.95. He further submits that the passport of his client is with the C.B.I, and if the C.B.I, has to interrogate his client in any other criminal matter on the basis of disclosure statements given by Babloo Srivastava the C.B.I, may proceed in ‘accordance with law and no one prohibits the C.B.I, for taking recourse to lawful procedures. According to him, as per admission of the learned counsel for the C.B.I., Chandra swami has been interrogated by the C.B.I, on 16.9.95 and 18-9-95 soon after disclosure statements are alleged to have been given by Babloo Srivastava. However, it is submitted by him that whenever his client is required for further investigations his client would he available for the same.

14. After stating the facts of the case, the grounds on which the present petition has been moved and the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties I would now deal with the merits of this petition.

15. First, I would like to take the places of the C.B.I, taken in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the petition. It is said that Om Prakash Srivastava @ Babloo Srivastava after being arrested has made disclosure statements to the effect that he not only stayed in the Ashram of Chandraswami but also fronting for him in his various deals and, therefore, the C.B.I, is investigating into the allegations whether Chandraswami was harbouring criminals, whether the disclosure statements of Babloo Srivastava are correct and whether one W.E. Miller was also an accomplice in the criminal deals. In paragraph 11 of the petition it is urged by the C.B.I, that the aforesaid investigations by the C.B.I. would be hampered to a great extent in case Chandraswami is not available for questioning in India. The C.B.I, also fears that Chandraswami may tamper with the evidence available in U.S.A. Canada and other countries in case he visits abroad. Further it is also apprehended that Chandraswami may not return to India after going abroad with a view to avoid the investigations.

16. So far as the fears of the C.B.I, are concerned I do not wish to make any comment in this case. To me the point for consideration in this case appears to be whether orders in this criminal case relating to the Fir lodged by Lakhubhai Pathak, should be mixed up with or affected by the other five criminal cases in which Chandraswami may be asked to join the investigation or may likely be found to be involved. In my view, this case or the orders passed therein should not be mixed up with the other five criminal cases.

17. So far as this case is concerned the learned counsel for C.B.I, has ad milted that the C.B.I, as such did not have any evidence of tampering of evidence by Chandraswami while in India or abroad. Had it not been a fact the C.B.I, would not have given no objection to the grant of permission to Chandraswami to go abroad when the aforesaid order dated 4.9.95 was passed. It is also not the case of the C.B.I that Chandraswami did not comply with the requisition of the C.B.I. for his interrogation in this case. Had it been so they would have objected to the grant of permission to him to go abroad when the matter for grant of such permission was taken up for hearing on 4.9.95. Therefore, in my opinion, when there is nothing on record to show that Chandraswami has avoided interrogation in this case or has tampered with the evidence in this case while in India or abroad I see no reason why the permission granted to Chandraswami to go abroad under the aforesaid order dated 4.9.95 be recalled. If the C.B.I, is investigating into other criminal cases in which there may be likelihood of Chandraswami’s involvement, nobody prohibits the C.B.I, to interrogate him. The C.B.I. may take recourse to the legal process which may be available to it under law for interrogating Chandraswami in those matters. The C.B.I., admittedly, has the passport of Chandraswami with it. Moreover, the permission granted to Chandraswami in this case will not hold good so far as other criminal cases are concerned in which Chandraswami may be wanted. Therefore, in these circumstances and taking into consideration the facts stated by the learned counsel for C.B.I., I am not in agreement with his prayer to recall the aforesaid order dated 4.9.95. For recall of a Judicial order there should be cogent reasons in that very case. Hence the prayer is refused.

18. Now I take up paragraph 8 of this petition. In this paragraph it has been stated that this Court had required Chandraswami to furnish the addresses of the places where he stayed during his visits abroad but he was not complying with those directions even after he was served notice by the C.B.I. The matter was brought to the notice of this Court on 2.3.95 and pursuant to the directions of this Court Chandraswami filed only the names of the foreign airports visited by him in a bunch for the period from February 1992 to February 1995 before this Court vide communication dated 6.3.95 with copy to the C.B.I. According to the C.B.I, on 27.9.95 also Chandraswami has given incomplete statement. It is further stated in this paragraph that the above would show that Chandraswami has scant regard for the law of the land and has been acting in flagrant violation of the orders of this Court obviously for some ulterior motives. Learned counsel for the C.B.I, vehemently urged before me that when Chandraswami is not complying with the directions of this Court he should not be permitted to go abroad. Aforesaid plea is on the basis of one of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting permission to Chandraswami to go abroad. That condition is reproduced as below:

“He shall keep the C.B.I, informed of the addresses and places where he goes to stay during his visit to abroad. This shall be done by the petitioner on every ten days basis.”
19. Learned counsel for Chandraswami ad milled that the aforesaid condition has not been followed by Chandraswami in entirety. Why it is so, has not been explained. Strong exception could have been taken by this Court of such default but in view of the admission of the C.B.I, that so far Chandraswami has not tampered with the evidence while in India or abroad strict notice is not being taken at this stage. But when the permission to go abroad was subject to certain conditions it was the duty of the petitioner to have complied with those conditions in entirety. Therefore, some order is needed to see that the aforesaid condition is complied with in entirety. Accordingly. it is ordered that Chandraswami shall not avail the permission granted to him under the order dated 4.9.95 till he complies with the aforesaid condition in entirely. He shall furnish complete information to this Court as well as to the CBI before he goes abroad.

20. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Gurnam Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh 2006(4) RCR.(Criminal) 713

Before :- Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 49794 of 2006 in Crl. No. 2479-SB of 2004. D/d. 21.9.2006

Gurnam Singh – Applicant

Versus

State of U.T. Chandigarh – Respondent
For the Applicant No. 1 :- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent :- Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, Section 329 – Permission to go abroad during trial – Accused facing trial in an offence under Section 325 Indian Penal Code – Case not likely to be heard soon – Permission granted to accused to go Canada to meet his son subject to his furnishing a surety of 3 lacs with an undertaking that he will return to India on or before November 30, 2006.

[Paras 6 and 7]

JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J. – The applicant-appellant No. 1 has filed this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking permission to go abroad to meet his son and family members.

2. In this case, the applicant-appellant No. 1 has been convicted by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, under Section 325 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

3. Vide order dated December 15, 2004 passed by this Court, the appeal filed by the appellants has been admitted and they have been ordered to be continued on bail and the sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court has been suspended till the disposal of the appeal subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of CJM, Chandigarh.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

5. In the application, the applicant-appellant No. 1 has stated that his son Rajinder Singh Sidhu, who is a resident of Canada , has since been blessed with a female child, therefore, the applicant wishes to go to Canada to meet his son and family members. It has been further stated that for this purpose, his son has sponsored the name of the applicant for visiting Canada . This is 2004 appeal and the same is not likely to be heard soon.

6. Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant-appellant No. 1 also undertakes that he shall return to India within two months and abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the applicant- appellant No. 1 is permitted to go to Canada subject to his furnishing a surety of Rs. three lacs with an undertaking that he will return to India on or before November 30, 2006.

Application allowed.

Pakhar Singh v. State of Punjab 2016 ALL MR(Cri) 287

JUDGMENT

M.M.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) – This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking permission to go abroad by quashing of order dated October 30, 2014, annexure P-3 by virtue of which the Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur in a private complaint filed in the year 2008 has refused to grant permission to Pakhar Singh and Mohinder Kaur to go abroad by releasing their passports disbelieving that Pakhar Singh was cancer patient under treatment in Sunny Book Health Science Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto.

2. It is pertinent to observe here that during the pendency of this petition, Pakhar Singh has died and the petition survives only for Mohinder Kaur.

3. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present petition are that Bakshish Kaur respondent No. 2 had filed a private complaint under Section 406, 420, 494, 120-B IPC on November 28, 2008 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with Pakhar Singh (now deceased) in the year 1955 in village Dakhowal. The family members of Pakhar Singh had maltreated her and turned her out of the matrimonial home as such she remained staying with her parents till 1960. Pakhar Singh had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was ended in compromise in the year 1961. On re-union, a female child Kuldeep Kaur was born on October 10, 1962 at Village Dhakkowal but the complainant respondent No. 2 remained at her parents house as the child was not well. Accused Pakhar Singh left India for Canada after solemnizing second marriage with Mohinder Kaur in Gurdwara Jian, Police Station Sadar, District Hoshiarpur. Accused No. 3 Avtar Singh, brother of Pakhar Singh and accused No. 4 Chinda Singh were present at the time of the marriage.

4. As per complaint, no specific date of marriage has been given but it is mentioned in para 7 thereof that brother of Pakhar Singh had put shagun and performed ceremony of milni of accused No. 1 Pakhar Singh, deceased petitioner No. 1 along with petitioner No. 2 were married in the year 1971 in Village Jian and had left for Canada by giving false information to the Canadian Embassy by obtaining Fiancee Visa. Petitioner accused Pakhar Singh purchased property in the name of his mother but later on, he transferred the same in the name of Mohinder Kaur by a Will executed by mother of Pakhar Singh. Dowry articles are in the custody of accused Nos. 3 and 4.

5. The trial Court had summoned the petitioners as accused under Section 494 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC vide order dated July 10, 2010. They were declared proclaimed offenders having not been served being residents of Canada . Their property was attached and put to auction and was sold for consideration of Rs. 43 lacs. When the petitioners visited India in order to get their property released, they were arrested by the police from the Airport and they remained in judicial custody. Thereafter they were released on bail. The petitioners were not able to leave India on account of pendency of the criminal proceedings. The petitioners moved an application in the year 2014 for permission to go abroad but the said application had been dismissed vide order dated October 30, 2014. The trial Court dismissed the application disbelieving that deceased Pakhar Singh was suffering from Cancer despite the fact that medical evidence was produced indicating that he was suffering from Multiple Myeloma Lesions in L2 and L5 vertebral bodies. A document indicating that the deceased had an appointment with Odette Cancer Centre in Canada was also not believed.

6. It is pertinent to observe here that the main grievance of the complainant in the complaint filed in the year 2008 is that in the year 1971, deceased Pakhar Singh has solemnized second marriage. Date of knowledge of marriage has not been mentioned by the complainant in the complaint annexure P-1 but it is an admitted fact that the complaint was filed in the year 2008 after a period of about 37 years of the alleged offence having been committed under Section 494 IPC. It is not averred in the complaint that Mohinder Kaur had knowledge about the first marriage of Pakhar Singh. Specific day, date and time of first and second marriage has also not been given.

7. Counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of order dated October 30, 2014, claiming that it is an abuse of the process of Court and in the interest of justice, the petitioners should have been permitted to leave India.

8. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 has vehemently urged that petitioner No. 2 had moved a misc. application for leaving India after the death of her husband Pakhar Singh which has been dismissed by an interim order dated July 30, 2015, refusing to permit petitioner No. 2 to take the body of her husband to Canada on the ground that there was absolute probability that she would not return from there especially when there is no property in her name here and all her relatives are in Canada , therefore, such permission was declined to her.

9. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also not out of place to observe here that the complainant along with her daughter had appeared in the Court in person along with their counsel at the time of hearing to inform this Court that a civil litigation is pending between the complainant and heirs of Pakhar Singh in RSA No. 37 of 2010 regarding the property of Pakhar Singh and that in case at this stage Mohinder Kaur is permitted to leave India she would fraudulently get the property of Pakhar Singh, situated in Canada , transferred in her name, prejudicing the rights of the first wife Bakshish Kaur to inherit the property as his wife would not return back.

10. It is not out of place to observe here that an attempt had been made by daughter of Bakshish Kaur by appearing in the Court along with an application for transfer of this case to another Bench with an objective to brow – beat the Court. She said that she is filing a complaint against this Court.

11. Such a practise is deprecated, however, this act of her has been pardoned showing magnanimity and without having any effect on the merits of the cases.

12. After the case had been reserved for orders after hearing arguments on October 21, 2015, respondent No.2 filed a misc. application No. 36790 of 2015 seeking permission to place on record her reply. Misc. application is allowed and reply is taken on record.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the complainant and I am of the opinion that the main allegations under Section 494 IPC were against Pakhar Singh who had allegedly married Mohinder Kaur in the year 1971. The complaint admittedly had been filed after a period of about 37 years. There is no specific day, date and time mentioned in the complaint regarding first or second marriage. The culpability of petitioner No. 2 – Mohinder Kaur is to be determined on the basis of her knowledge of the first marriage besides the establishment of the factum of second marriage being void. The fact remains that she cannot be penalised for the delay being caused in the adjudication of the private complaint which has been filed after a gap of 37 years. The property of Pakhar Singh is situated in India. Petitioner No. 2 Mohinder Kaur has got a claim in the same. The litigation regarding her property is pending. It is a settled principle of law that an accused will be deemed to be innocent till proved guilty but at the same time life and liberty of an accused has not to be prejudiced on account of any act of the Court. Maintainability of the complaint after a period of 37 years would certainly be a debatable issue. This Court is not expressing any opinion regarding the rights of the parties in the property of Pakhar Singh. Striking a balance between the liberty of petitioner No.2 and her status of innocence during the pendency of the trial vis-à-vis the right of complainant to prosecute petitioner No.2 by establishing the allegations to logical end, I deem it appropriate to permit petitioner No. 2, a lady, to leave India for a period of six months in order to enable her to visit her home in Canada . It is ordered that petitioner No. 2 will be required to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lacs with the trial Court and surety bond for a sum of Rs.1 lac to the satisfaction of the Court to return after six months which will be determined by the Court. Her passport will be released to her on furnishing the above said surety and security. It is ordered that the amount of Rs. 5 lacs deposited in the Court would be released to the complainant besides the right of the State to forfeit the amount in case the conditions of the bond are violated by petitioner No. 2 – Mohinder Kaur and she does not return back after a period of six months.

14. It is further observed that any interim order passed by this Court would not effect the disposal of the complaint at final stage.

15. Allowed in the aforesaid terms setting aside the order dated October 30, 2014.