Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3384 of 2010 Applicant :- Smt. Rehana Parveen @ Reena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Sisodia,Atul Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
In Re : Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.283706 of 2017 Besides formal objection raised by learned A.G.A., there does not appear any real objection to delay in filing the restoration application.
As such, delay in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned.
This application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2018 Manish Himwan
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3384 of 2010 Applicant :- Smt. Rehana Parveen @ Reena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Sisodia,Atul Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
In Re: Crl. Misc. Restoration Application No.283717 of 2017 Besides formal objection raised by learned A.G.A. there does not appear any real objection to the restoration application, which has been filed seeking recall of order dated 29.05.2015.
In view of above, this recall application is allowed. Order dated 29.05.2015 is hereby recalled. The present application is restored to its original number and status.
Order Date :- 27.9.2018 Manish Himwan
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3384 of 2010 Applicant :- Smt. Rehana Parveen @ Reena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Sisodia,Atul Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1751 of 2005 (State Vs. Usman and others), arising out of Case Crime No.546-C of 2004, under Sections-363, 366 IPC, Police Station-Seohara, District-Bijnor, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Bijnor.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present prosecution has been lodged by O. P. no.2 on being disgruntled with marriage performed by his sister i.e. applicant no.1 with applicant no.2, against wishes of said opposite party. The present criminal case had been lodged against the applicant no.2 and his family members but that neither there was any criminal intent on the part of any party nor any criminal offence had actually occurred.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-
(i) the only dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties;
(ii) the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;
(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos;Hence, that allegation may also not stand in the way of the applicant/s in seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution.
(v) at present, despite such objections raised by O. P. no.2, applicant no.1 and 2 are living together in matrimony and have two children.
(vi) therefore, in the changed circumstance, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto estranged couple and their families;
5. Sri Dhirendra Srivastava, Advocate has filed affidavit of O. P. no.2 . Para 2 of said affidavit reads as under :
"That the deponent has lodged the first information report against the applicants due to some confusion and applicant no.1 and 2 are living as husband-wife and in the wedlock there are two children and deponent has no objection over relationship of applicant no.1 and 2 and she has no objection if proceeding of Criminal Case No.593 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No.546-C of 2004 (State Vs. Usman @ Lugdi and others), under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station-Seohara, District-Bijnor pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, Bijnor is quashed by the Hon'ble Court."
6. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being matrimonial discord that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their entire satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.
7. 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.
8. The present application is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 27.9.2018 Manish Himwan