(2). The present writ petition is listed today for admission and disposal of stay application. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and now the case is ripe for final hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition itself it finally disposed of at admission stage.

(3). After perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and reply filed by respondents and also after hearing learned counsel on both sides at length on 23.2.98, the petitioner was granted three days time to file a supplementary affidavit stating therein that statement of Smt. Suman Dudee wife of Captain R.S. Dudee- petitioner was recorded during the course of investigation in summary court of inquiry envisaged under Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 as allegation made by her against respondent No. 4 affects his character. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents was also directed to file a supplementary reply, indicating therein that a prima facie case was inquired against the petitioner under the aforesaid rules as allegation made against him affects military reputation.

(4). In compliance of the order dated 23.2.98, the petitioner has filed supple- mentary affidavit, along with statement of Smt. Suman Dudee as Annexure-10, recorded during the course of investigation in summary court of inquiry under Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954. The respondents have also filed a supplementary reply along with relevant documents such as Summary of evidence, Additional Summary of evidence recorded during the course of court of inquiry, reply of Mrs. Dudee, copy of Appendix `A to Army order AO 135/78 marked as Annexure-R/5 to Annexure-R/10 in support of their claim that before initiation of General Court-martial proceedings against the petitioner which affects military reputation a prima facie case was inquired against him under Rule 180 of the Army Rules 1954.

(5). I propose to decide the present writ petition without delineating the facts in detail averred in the writ petition by the petitioner and emphatically denied by answering respondents in their reply except mentioning the facts that charge-sheet Annexure-7 to the writ petition was served to the petitioner on 2.9.97 thereafter a subsequent charge-sheet dated 10.2.98 Annexure-9 under Sec. 68, 63 and 56(a) of the Army Act was also served upon him. It is alleged in paragraph 11 of the writ pe- tition that when the complaint against respondent no. 4 for outraging modesty of his wife before the superior military authorities resulted into fiasco then she was compelled to file a criminal complaint under Sec. 354 and 452 IPC before the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur. The learned Judicial Magistrate after recording statements on oath under Sec. 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. has taken cognizance against respondent No. 4 under Sec. 354 and 452 IPC on 9.12.97 vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition, holding that the provisions of Sec. 475 Cr.P.C. are not applicable hence respondent No. 4 can be summoned directly. It is also averred that respondent No. 4 personally appeared before the said court on 4.2.98 wherein he was directed to furnish requisite bail bonds for his future appearance as and when required. It is further alleged that respondent No. 4 in compliance of courts order has furnished requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur. Thus indisputably a criminal case relating to outraging the modesty of wife of the petitioner is pending trial before learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur.

(6). The answering respondents have filed detailed reply making averments to the effect that the pr