Allowed

Mohd Amir Siddiqui and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019CRLP/31049/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of an FIR under Section 498A IPC and sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in light of a settlement agreement and mediation report indicating reconciliation and living together.

What did the court decide?

FIR under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342, 316 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act and all subsequent proceedings set aside.

Mohd Amir Siddiqui and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 31049 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd Amir Siddiqui And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utsav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Prasad Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Utsav, learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Rajesh Prasad Yadav, Advocate for Respondent-5.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of First Information Report dated 29.09.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1201 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342, 316 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad.

¶7

The matter was remitted for mediation and report of Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 17.05.2019 has been submitted alongwith settlement agreement dated 26.04.2019. Parties have settled the matter and terms of settlement contained in para 6 read as under:

¶8

"6. In view of the interim settlement dated 26.04.2019, the following settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto:

¶9

a) That the marriage of Mohd. Amir Siddiqui (Petitioner No. 1- husband) and Smt. Asra Siddiqui alias Anam (Respondent No. 5-wife) was solemnized on 25.12.2016. No issue was born out of aforesaid wedlock. The parties have been living separately since 02.04.2018. b) That the parties have decided to live together as husband and wife forgetting all previous disputes and differences and they undertake 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.

¶10

c) That in view of the interim settlement they are living together with full love and affection and further they want to continue it for the rest

¶11

of their lives.

¶12

d) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall live in the accommodation of the father of the petitioner-husband but separately. They shall use common stairs in aforesaid accommodation.

¶13

e) That they undertake not to take any such step which may hurt either of the party mentally or physically and shall try to satisfy each other by their activities.

¶14

f) That the petitioner-husband undertake to take care of his wife and provide all essential requirements and amenities to her in future.

¶15

(g) That there will be non unnecessary interference of parents of either of the party in their peaceful living.

¶16

(h) That all the cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/ authority concerned."

¶17

In view thereof, writ petition is allowed in terms of aforesaid settlement. Impugned FIR dated 29.09.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1201 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342, 316 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad and all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby set aside.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 AK

Mohd Amir Siddiqui and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Amir Siddiqui and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Amit Singh Vs Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another

Satyaketu Singh and 2 Others Vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another

Vishal Tiwari Vs State of U P and Another

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Seema Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vikas and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others