Sandeep Chaudhary v. Priyanka Cr. Revision [FC] No.65 of 2025 17.08.2026. Present: Petitioner along with Special Power of Attorney present in person. Ms. Ruchika Khachi, Advocate, for the respondent. Cr.MP Nos.2733 & 3484 of 2026 The petitioner is present in the Court in person. This is a decided case. The main petition was disposed of by this court on 27.05.2026 by passing the following order: “Cr.MP No.2028 of 2026 & Cr. Revision No.65 of 2025 By way of this application, as prayer has been made to permit the petitioner to withdraw the main revision petition. The application is allowed as prayed for and the main revision petition is dismissed a withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.” 2. Thereafter, an application i.e. Cr.MP No.2733 of 2026 stands filed for recalling said order on the ground that application in the main petition was filed with the prayer that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the matter with permission to reinstitute the aforesaid criminal revision petition as there were certain formal defects in the same, but the order which was passed by this Court on 27.05.2026 did not record any such concession therein. 3. Incidentally, when the order was passed on 27.05.2026, the petitioner, who is a Government servant and serving as a Patwari, was represented by Shri Devender K. Sharma, Advocate and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, in terms of the prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. There was no request made to the Court seeking liberty etc. 4. Be that as it may, the application for recalling of order dated 27.05.2026 has been filed by the petitioner through his father, in his capacity as a Special Power of Attorney Holder. The application is supported by the affidavit of the father of the petitioner and not of the petitioner himself. It is his father who addressed the Court on the last date. This Court fails to understand as to how, at the first instance, this application for recalling of order dated 27.05.2026 is maintainable, which was passed on the request of the learned Counsel, who appeared for the petitioner and that too on an application, which is not even supported by an affidavit of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner herein is not an incapacitated person. He is a Government servant and the dispute which is pending before this court is a matrimonial dispute, which apparently is being fuelled by the father-in-law of the respondent, who is the Special Power of Attorney of the petitioner and his father. 6. The application for recalling of order dated 27.05.2026 is filed by the petitioner through his father in his capacity as Special Power of Attorney Holder. When the Special Power of Attorney Holder appeared in the Court on the last date of hearing, i.e. 10.07.2026, this court passed the following order: “Though, an application has been listed today for modification of order dated 27.05.2026, but in light of the controversy involved therein, we are of the considered view that an endeavour should be made to have the matter amicably settled between the parties as it is a matrimonial dispute. As the special power of attorney of the applicant as well learned Counsel for the non-applicant have no objection to the said suggestion, the parties are directed to appear in person before the Court on 17.08.2026. It is clarified that participation in the process for amicable resolution of the issue will be without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties.” 7. The order passed by the Court was an innocuous order. In the light of the fact that the dispute being a matrimonial dispute, this court was of the considered view that an endeavor should be made to have the matter amicably settled between the parties. However, now a fresh application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by his Special Power of Attorney again on the affidavit of the Special Power of Attorney Holder, i.e., Cr. MP No.3484 of 2026, in which, the following is mentioned in Paragraphs No.1 and 2:- “i). That the above titled matter as has showed and recorded has been decided vide order dated 27.05.2026, and that the application Cr. M.P. No. 2733 of 2026 is pending adjudication for rectification of the order dated 27.05.2026, and as the same has been heard on 10.07.2026 for the modification/rectification of said order dated 27.05.2026 but then in view of so stated controversy as has been mentioned by the Hon'ble Court in the said order dated 10.07.2026, the Hon'ble Double bench of the Hon'ble High Court adjourned the modification of the said order dated 27.05.2026 and listed the present matter for amicable settlement between the parties on 17.08.2026 and directed the parties to appear for said settlement and that the prayer as was made by the present applicant for modification of the said order dated 27.05.2026 as per the application Cr. M.P. No.2028 of 2026 didn’t heard on 10.07.2026 in the so said light of by mentioning of some controversy therein the application Cr. M.P. No. 2733 of 2026 filed for said modification by the present applicant but the said controversy has not demonstrated in the said relative order dated 10.07.2026 by the said Hon'ble Double Bench as such said controversy mentioned in the said relative order dated 10.07.2026 is to be demonstrated and cleared and further as such is to be removed but the same as stands not demonstrated in the said order dated 10.07.2026 also as such said controversy is to be demonstrated and cleared so as to remove the same. Also that present applicant has no objection to appear for the proper settlement and proper remedy of the present matrimonial dispute after the said modification of order dated 27.05.2026, it is also submitted that there is infact no any controversy therein the said application as such present applicant object that there is any controversy therein the said application and also that present matrimonial relations infact has been socially come to the end and in view of this and also in view of her acts and conduct, there rise no any question and requirement of any meeting for so said amicable settlement as also in view of the petitions alleging of serious allegations against the present applicant by the present respondent stood instituted in the course of law and the same are in proceedings in the Courts of law; until unless said petitions are not finally decided or stood withdrawn by the present respondent, in view of the same also present applicant in the eyes of natural law has compelled for not to appear for any amicable settlement, until unless present respondent withdraw all the petitions filed by her with the condition that she will in future not claim any type of maintenance by alleging of any type of allegations from the present applicant and also that the petition as has filed by her for obtaining of decree of divorce as the same is under review and in proceedings in the court of law at Hamirpur and also an other petition as has been filed by the present applicant for obtaining a decree of divorce until unless she accept to those unilaterally in written by submitting the same in the Ld. Court of Law in the record file with copy to the same to the present applicant for due consideration and the same stood finalized present applicant in the eyes of natural law also has compelled for not to appear for any amicable settlement in the present situation and circumstances; ii). That the present Dila Ram father of the said Sandeep Chaudhary present applicant by virtue of Special Power of Attorney from said Sandeep Chaudhary had placed no objection to the suggestion of said amicable settlement on behalf of his son said Sandeep Chaudhary but present in view of the terms and conditions mentioned thereafter unilaterally in relative said order dated 10.07.2026 present applicant Dila Ram as also Sandeep Chaudhary strongly object said terms and conditions mentioned in the said order dated 10.07.2026 for so said amicable settlement and also to that present applicant said Sandeep Chaudhary will appear in person not alongwith his father who is having Special Power of Attorney in the Courts of law to act alongwith him in the said settlement and also strongly oppose that participations in the process of said amicable resolution will be effectless and not prejudicable in future to any respective contentions in the present matter between the parties.” 8. This Court is really pained by the averments made in this application by the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner. The Special Power of Attorney Holder, who happens to be his father, is an aged man. He is also hard of hearing. It was with the assistance of other learned Counsel present in the Court that the Court communicated with him on the previous date. It is, inter alia, alleged in the application that Dila Ram, father of Sandeep Chaudhary, had placed no objection to the suggestion of amicable settlement on behalf of his son, but in view of the terms and conditions mentioned thereafter, unilaterally in order dated 10.07.2026 by this Court, Dila Ram as also Sandeep Chaudhary strongly object to the said terms and conditions for amicable settlement. The order which was passed by this Court on 10.07.2026 has already been quoted by us hereinabove. No condition whatsoever was imposed by the Court, unilaterally or otherwise in the said order. In fact, an observation was made by the Court that endeavour to have the matter amicably settled shall be without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties. This was to create an atmosphere, wherein, the parties could have discussed the issues amongst themselves, without compromising their respective stands taken by them in the litigation between them. Yet, allegations have been made in the application that certain unilateral conditions have been imposed by the Court in order dated 10.07.2026 and the impression given in the application is that these conditions were imposed at the back of the Special Power of Attorney meaning thereby that the final order was not the one dictated in the Court. 9. Be that as it may, a perusal of the averments made in the application demonstrate that the deponent that is the father of the petitioner, is stating that the parties are being pressurized in the present case by the Court to settle the matter amicably. The language which is used in the application is contemptuous. 10. Therefore, as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, same is referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, so that appropriate proceedings, if Hon'ble the Chief Justice so deems fit proceedings can be initiated against Shri Dila Ram for undermining the majesty of the Court and levelling false allegations against the Court. 11. We also observe that in the light of the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961, as primarily, it is only an Advocate, who can practice in a Court and exception, if any, is with the permission of the Court, this is not a case where a Special Power of Attorney can appear for the petitioner, because the Court again reiterates that the petitioner is neither an incapacitated person nor such a person, who could not otherwise have had engaged a lawyer so as to pursue the matter in accordance with law. 12. As far as the application, i.e., Cr. MP No. 2733 of 2026, seeking recall of order, dated 27.05.2026 is concerned, the same is dismissed by holding that there is no provision in the relevant Statute to allow a party to withdraw a Criminal Revision with liberty to file a fresh petition and further, there is no power vested in this Court under the Criminal Law to review its order; and otherwise also, order dated 27.05.2026 was passed in terms of the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In light of the rejection of said application, the subsequent application, i.e., Cr. MP No. 3484 of 2206 is also closed. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) August 17, 2026 Judge [Shivender]