Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3964 (ALL)

Mohd. Wamiq @ Guddan v. State of U. P.

2015-12-14

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri M.Y. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer; "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 15.2.2015 (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) in case Crime No. 623 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kotwali Katra, district Mirzapur; 2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in crime No. 623 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kotwali Katra, district Mirzapur. 3. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; 4. Award costs of petition to the petitioner." 3. It appears that this matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court by order dated 15.5.2015. According to the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 19.11.2015 the mediation has succeeded and petitioner no.1 and the daughter of the respondent no. 3 Afrin Naz have entered into settlement agreement before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and according to Clause 6 (e) of the settlement agreement the parties have agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by them against each other. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matrimonial dispute from which the impugned first information report emanates having been settled amicably between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the parties having agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by them against each other, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 Sri M.Y. Khan submitted that his client has no objection if the impugned first information report is quashed in view of the compromise. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the settlement agreement dated 19.11.2015 entered into between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, we find that since the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no. 1 and the daughter of the respondent no. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the settlement agreement dated 19.11.2015 entered into between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, we find that since the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no. 1 and the daughter of the respondent no. 3 has been settled amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the respondent no. 3 as well as his daughter are no longer interested in proceeding any further against the petitioner in this matter, hence the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned first information report dated 15.2.2015 and all proceedings taken in pursuance thereto against the petitioner are hereby quashed. 7. There shall be however no order as to costs.