The court must ensure timely and fair trial proceedings, free from undue influence, to uphold justice in domestic violence cases.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Diwakar, J.

1. Heard the petitioner-wife in person, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the trial court to commence the proceedings in Case No.7782 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 379 of 2004, under Sections 4 98A, 504, 506, 323 IPC, read with Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut, which was subsequently transferred to Moradabad. The petitioner further seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of the proceedings and the conclusion of Complaint Case No. 4934 of 2019, which is pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ACJM, Moradabad.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1 The petitioner-wife claims to had been residing at 388/5, Nehru Nagar, Garh Road, Meerut, and is employed as an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Zoology at Hindu College, Moradabad. She further claims to have pursued her education at C.C.S. University, Meerut, where she achieved notable academic distinctions, including an M.Sc. (Gold Medal), M.Phil. (First Position), CSIR (JRF) NET, and Ph.D. The petitioner’s husband holds a BAMS degree, an MD in Ayurveda, and was stated to be employed as a resident doctor at Dev Bhommi Hospital, Haridwar, before their marriage.

3.2 The petitioner’s marriage to Respondent No. 7 was solemnized on 15.01.2003, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. The petitioner gave birth of twin children—one son and one daughter. Soon after the marriage, the petitioner alleges that she was subjected to continuous harassment, physical abuses, and mental cruelty by her husband and other family members, all in connection with demands for additional dowry. Due to her failure to meet these unlawful dowry demands, the petitioner-wife was forcibly thrown out from her matrimonial home on 08.08.2004, leaving behind her 7-month-old daughter and the son was retained by the husband.

4. Having no other recourse, the petitioner-wife lodged an FIR on 08.10.2004 which was registered as Case Crime No. 379 of 2004, under Sections under Sections 4 98A, 504, 506, 323 IPC, read with Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut, against her husband and other relatives. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the accused persons filed Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8593 of 2004 before this Court, which was disposed of, on the first date of listing, by an order dated 29.10.2004. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we finally dispose of the writ petition by directing that the petitioners shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 379 of 2004, under Section 4 98-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut till the conclusion of the trial provided they pay interim compensation to the victim wife Smt. Sudha Agarwal, respondent no.3 @ Rs. 1500/- per month from today. Such interim compensation from today up to 31.10.2004 shall be deposited in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut by 7^th November 2004 and for all subsequent months by 7^th day of the following month. The wife Smt. Sudha Agarwal shall be entitled to withdraw the same.

The order for payment of interim compensation is based on the analogy of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty , AIR 1996 SC 922 . In case of failure in payment of interim compensation, the order staying the arrest of the petitioners shall sta