LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-121

RAIS Vs. STATE OF UP

Decided On March 18, 2010
RAIS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), the applicants Rais, Shamsher, Smt. Jamsheeda and Zahir have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the charge sheet dated 03.10.2009 of criminal case No. 7149 of 2009 (State v. Rais and Ors.), arising out of case Crime No. 1524 of 2009, under Section 498A, 323, 307/511, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as emerging from accompanying affidavit, in brief, are that the marriage of applicant No. 1 Rais and opposite party No. 3 Smt. Farzana took place about 5 years prior to the incident which is said to have occurred on 10.08.2009. As a result of that incident and due to certain disputes between the couple, an FIR was lodged by Fazlu Khan (Opposite Party No. 2 herein) father of Smt. Farzana, on 14.08.2009 at P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar, where a case under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307/511 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered against the applicants. It is alleged in the accompanying affidavit that FIR was challenged by the applicants in this Court by filing a writ petition and arrest of the applicants was stayed. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants, on which cognizance has been taken by the CJM Muzaffarnagar and criminal case No. 7149 of 2009 is pending against the applicants. It is further averred in the accompanying affidavit that the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and as a result of the compromise entered into between the parties, Smt. Farzana is now living with her husband and they both are enjoying peaceful life. As a result of the compromise entered into between the parties, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the charge-sheet.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants and AGA representing the State of U.P.