Allowed

Shariq Rasul v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2018A482/9668/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from marital discord. Finding that the parties had entered into a compromise and resolved their differences amicably, the court held that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution and exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal case and cognizance order were quashed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9668 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shariq Rasul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saiyad Imran Ibrahim

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 57 of 2013, dated 2.7.2013 and cognizance order dated 20.8.2013 in Criminal Case No. 1582 of 2013 (State Vs. Shariq Rasul), arising out of Case Crime No. 132 of 2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Anwarganj, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of M.M. VI, Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the disputes between the parties had arisen out of marital discord and that there was no criminal intent ever and no offence as alleged had ever occurred. Besides, the present proceeding, the opposite party no.2 had also instituted proceeding under Section 498A IPC in which the applicant had also been charge sheeted. It resulted in filing 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 25253 of 2012, which has been allowed today in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, wherein sum of Rs. 2,13,00,000/- has been paid out to the opposite party no.2 through various demand drafts. Further certain investments have also been transferred in her favour in pursuance of such agreement.

¶8

Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed counter affidavit admitting the factual assertion made by learned counsel for the applicant. Para 5 to 6 of the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 reads as under:-

¶9

"4. That as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the applicant has annexed photo copies of 4 original pay orders in Crl. Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) bearing no. 25253 of 2012, which he shall hand over to the opposite party no.2 at the time the case is taken up and finally heard in this Hon'ble Court and pursuant to which the proceedings of the present case shall stand quashed, the details of which are as follows:

¶10

a. Demand Draft no. 719001 dated 3.4.2018 of 1 crore in favour of Fahaad Rasul,

¶11

b. Demand Draft bearing no. 719002 dated 3.4.2018 of 1 crore in favour of Saher Rasul,

¶12

c. Demand Draft no. 719003 dated 3.4.2018 of 8 lacs in favour of Rubina Rasul and;

¶13

d. Demand Draft no. 719004 dated 3.4.2018 of 5 lacs in favour of Rubina Rasul.

¶14

5. That the opposite party no.2 affirms the fact that an agreement has been entered between the parties and she has no objections if the proceedings of the present case are quashed as per the terms and condition of the compromise deed dated 4.10.017.

¶15

6. That the compromise deed dated 4.10.2017 has already been appended as annexure no.1 by the applicant hence the same is not being brought on record. However, the

¶16

opposite party no.2 specifically and categorically admits the fact that a compromise deed dated 4.10.2017 has been entered between the parties."

¶17

In view of the above, it does appear that the disputes between the parties had arisen on account of marital discord and difference between the parties have been resolved amicably to their full satisfaction and opposite party no.2 does not intent to press the charges against the present applicant

¶18

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has admitted the fact of the compromise.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012)10 SCC 303 . Thus, at present, there does not appear any hope of the witnesses testifying in support of the prosecution case. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶20

From the perusal of the record it cannot be denied that the parties have entered into compromise and have resolved their differences amicably. In view of B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh versus State Of Punjab (supra) this court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings since the dispute between the parties had arisen on account of marital discord and the same have since been amicably resolved between the parties.

¶21

Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case; nature of offence alleged and; total improbability of any credible evidence being led to testify in favour of the prosecution case, the proceedings in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶22

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 9.4.2018 Mini

Shariq Rasul v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shariq Rasul 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Teekam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Baburam Bharti and 3 Ors. Vs State Ofu.P. and Another

Mobian Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chamman Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sharda Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another