RAHUL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A. G. A. and the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The petition can be finally disposed of at this stage on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case mentioned and enumerated in two separate applica tions moved by the petitioner and the op posite party No. 2.

(2.) INITIALLY this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was filed in which the prayer was for questing the proceedings in crime case No. 780 of 1989 corresponding to new no. 373 of 1990: (State v. Rahul Agrawal) pend ing in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly which arose out of the FIR, dated 28- 6-89 and charge-sheet dated 21-7-1989. The same prayer has been re- integrated in the subsequent application of the petitioner. In para 3 of the affidavit accom panying this application it is mentioned that marital relations between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 stand dissolved by a decree of divorce granted by the com petent Court in the year 1992 and the op -. posite party No. 2 had voluntarily given the custody of only minor sons born out of wed lock to the deponent in 1992. The matter of maintenance etc. also stood disposed of be tween the parties and now no other dispute exists, except the only criminal proceedings between the parties. The opposite party No. 2 in her affidavit along with subsequent ap plication had admitted this fact in paras 2 and 3. On the basis of these two affidavits the factual position emerges that the marittal relations between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 have come to an end and all the disputes between them regarding maintenance, custody of child etc. has been settled and no other dispute between them is pending except the criminal case men tioned in this petition.

(3.) THE same view has been taken in Nirlape Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1993 (3) Crimes 922.