Allowed

Mohd. Hasim v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2018A482/12821/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial discord. The court, noting a settlement agreement reached via mediation involving mutual divorce and financial settlement, quashed the proceedings as the dispute was amicably resolved.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 7.7.2017 in Case No. 5072 of 2017.

Mohd. Hasim Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12821 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Hasim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Monis Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 7.7.2017 in Case No. 5072 of 2017, (State Vs. Mohd, Hasim), arising out of Case Crime No. 281 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur in pursuance of the compromise dated 3.10.2017 held between the parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for the parties states that the mediation proceedings have been successful. However, the mediation report has yet not been placed on record. In such circumstance, the mediation report duly verified by learned counsel for the parties has been supplied today. It is retained on record. Paragraph no. 6 of the said compromise reads as under:

¶8

6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-

¶9

a). That the marriage of Mohd. Hasim (Applicant-Husband) and Smt. Eram (O.P. No.2wife) was solemnized on 1.3.2016. After living together for a period of 1 week, the relations between the husband and wife became strained and they started living separately. No issue was born out of aforesaid wedlock.

¶10

b). That the parties have stated that they have already taken mutual divorce (Talaq) on 3.10.2017 and produce the copy of Talaqnama, which is annexed to this settlement agreement.

¶11

c). That the full and final amount of all the financial claims including mehar and iddat period for Rs. 4,50,000/- has already been paid by Mohd. Hasim (Applicant-Husband) to Smt. Eram (O.P.No.2-wife) on 1.10.2017.

¶12

d). That the parties have produced copy of withdrawal applications for case no. 526 of 2016 (Smt. Eram Vs. Mohd. Hashim & others), under Section 12, D.V. Act, 2005.

¶13

e). That it has been agreed between the parties that all the Criminal and Civil Cases filed by parties against each other shall be withdrawn by them if any by taking appropriate steps before the court/Authorities concerned within two weeks of this Settlement Agreement."

¶14

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant/s that the dispute between the parties arises out of matrimonial discord. This court vide order dated 17.4.2018 had referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. A settlement/agreement had arrived on 31.5.2018 between the parties. A copy of the same is on record. Perusal of the settlement/agreement thus reached reveals that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases between them.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the settlement/agreement arrived at between the parties on

¶16

31.5.2018 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, the proceedings in the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶17

The application is allowed

¶18

Order Date :- 17.7.2018 Mini

Mohd. Hasim v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Hasim v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek @ Golu Thru His Father Pujanram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Jalik and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saeed Hafiz and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Asgan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood and 3 others Vs State of U.P. and another