Allowed
Mohd. Jalik and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Allahabad HCA482/11912/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11912 of…
What the court decided
AI extract
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11912 of…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11912 of 2018
Applicant :- Mohd. Jalik And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saumitra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
The present application 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the chargesheet dated 28.06.2015 arising out of the Case Crime No. 473 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354(A) (1) I.P.C., and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mauaima, District- Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case arises out of the matrimonial discord between applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, as the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the settlement dated 17.04.2018, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. Paragraph 6 a) to h) of the settlement agreement reads as under:
"6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:
a) That the marriage of Mohd. Jalik (Application No. 1-Husband) and Smt. Rukhsar Bano (O.P. No. 2-Wife) was solemnized on 30.05.2012. Out of aforesaid wedlock the parties have a daughter namely Jaib Fatima (aged about 5 years) and a son namely Ali Ahmed (aged about 3 years). Due to strained relationship the parties were living separately, but since last about one year they are living together as husband and wife.
b) That today i.e. 17.04.2018 hey have further decided to reunite and live together as husband and wife in perfect harmony forgetting all previous disputes and differences and they overtaker to discharge all matrimonial obligations towards each other in respectful manner and undertake not to commit any kind of cruelty against each other in any manner whatsoever.
c) That they have informed that they are fully satisfied with this reunion and further they want to continue it for the rest of their lives.
d) That the husband and wife undertake that they shall not take any such action which may hurt either of the party mentally or physically and shall try to satisfy each other by their activities.
e) That the husband undertakes to take care of his wife and children and provide all essential requirements and amenities to them in future.
f) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all the cases filed by them against each other shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/Authority concerned.
g) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse."
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. In fact the settlement agreement discloses that the compromise has been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another ), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
The present application is accordingly allowed .
Order Date :- 16.7.2018 Prakhar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under matrimonial offences should be quashed on grounds of family dispute and mutual settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B. S. Joshi Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶17
2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶17
J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another) · Who else cites this
Mohd. Jalik And 3 Others
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court