JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by one Lakhwinder Kaur, who is the sister of one Tarlok Singh, who is an accused in a complaint filed by the respondents herein amongst other provisions under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The present appeal arises out of an order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 683/2007 filed by the respondents Roshan Singh and Bimla Devi, who are the parents of the deceased Inderjit Kaur, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus with regard to the minor child of the deceased and Tarlok Singh. By virtue of the impugned order, the High Court, while allowing the Writ Petition, directed the appellant herein to hand over custody of the minor child, Anmol Singh, to his maternal grand parents within a month from the date of the order i.e. 11.9.2007. It has further been made clear that the said deduction will be subject to the decision to be passed by the Guardian Court in the pending proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which was, in fact, pending before the learned District/Guardian Judge, Rupnagar.

4. While issuing notice on 12.10.2007, this Court had also granted an ad interim stay of the directions contained in the impugned order of the High Court. The consequence has been that the minor child has all along been in the custody of either the appellant herein or at a later stage the paternal grand mother.

5. Today when the matter has come up for final disposal, we are informed that the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is at the stage of evidence of the respondents. Keeping in mind the interest of the child, which, in our view, is paramount, and also having regard to the fact that ever since the death of his mother the child has been in the custody of the appellant or the paternal grand mother, we are not inclined to disturb such custody at the present moment. However, we endorse the view of the High Court that whatever order may be passed at any stage, the same will be subject to the final decision in the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

6. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal by directing the learned District/Guardian Judge, Rupnagar, to dispose of the pending proceedings expeditiously, but positively within three months from the date of communication of this order. The learned Courts below should keep in mind the anxiety of this Court with regard to the welfare of the minor and shall not be influenced by any orders which may be passed in the interregnum.

7. In the meantime, pending final disposal of the proceedings before the learned District/Guardian Judge, Rupnagar, we make it clear that the respondents would be at liberty to apply before the courts below for visitation rights and if such an application is made, the same is to be considered expeditiously on its merits by the court below.

8. Having regard to the nature of the controversy involved, the parties will bear their own costs.