# Kahkashan Begum & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 344
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-01-21
- **Case number:** Application U/s 482 No. 29717 of 2013
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kahkashan-begum-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43149
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of criminal
proceeding-offence u/s 323, 384, 504,
506 IPC-on ground of misuse of process
of law and malicious prosecution -as a
counter blast to criminal case pending
against respondent 2-admittedly
the
applicant and respondent 2 are husband
wife-matrimonial
dispute
going
onmediation failed-all allegations general
in
nature-not
corroborated
by
independent evidence-even if accepted
to be true-not disclose any offenceentire proceeding including summoning
order quashed.
Held: Para-7
Considered the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
It is admitted case that applicant no.1
and op. party no.2 are husband and wife
who were married to each other in the
year 2006 according to Muslim traditions
and there appears to have been some
bitterness between them after marriage
and she was being tortured by her
husband opp. party no.2 and her in-laws for
demand of a colour T.V. and a motorcycle
from applicant no.1 and her parents, which
could not be fulfilled and on account of
which harassment which was made by opp.
party
no.2
and
his
family
members
physically and mentally, the applicant no.1
who was carrying a child in her womb
became
so
much
1 All] Kahkashan Begum & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
345
stressed and gave a birth of a dead child
in the year 2008 and ultimately she was
ousted from her in-laws matrimonial
home on 1.10.2012. The opp. party no.2
is also facing prosecution at the hands
of his wife wife applicant no.1 in which
he and his family members are being
prosecuted and proceedings initiated by
him against his wife and her family
members who are applicants in the
present case are only vague and general
allegations have been made which does
not corroborate by any independent and
cogent evidence excepting his evidence
and his family members and even if the
same is taken to be true on the face of
it, the same does not disclose any
offence
against
the
applicant.
The
prosecution of the applicant further
appears to be a malicious one which has
been initiated by op. party no.2 against
the applicant no.1 and her family
members
to
pressurize
them
to
withdraw
the
criminal
prosecution
launched against them by the applicants
for the offence under Section 498 I.P.C.
etc.

## Text

344
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
delay in issuing appropriate clarifications
with regard to the applicability of the
Rules to Primary Sections, the same could
not have denuded the petitioners of their
right to claim pension under the Rules
1964. It is further relevant to note here
that the Primary Section was an integral
part of the Institution and the teachers
attached thereto could not have been
discriminated for the purposes of payment
of pension merely because they came on
to grant-in-aid list w.e.f. 1.10.1989. In the
opinion of the Court, there is no provision
under the Rules 1964 which curtails the
computation of length of qualifying
service to the time when the Primary
Sections became or came under the grantin-aid list.
9. Accordingly and in view of the
above, this writ petition is allowed and it
is accordingly held that the petitioners
shall be entitled to pension under the
provisions of the Rules 1964. The
management contribution required to be
deposited may be so made within a period
of two months and thereafter the
respondents shall proceed to compute the
pension of the petitioners taking into
account the total length of qualifying
service rendered by them and in light of
the observations made hereinabove. The
pension so computed and becoming liable
to be paid to the petitioners from their
respective dates of superannuation will be
paid within a period of two months from
the date of deposit of management
contribution and the arrears shall carry
interest of 12 per cent per annum.
10. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed in terms indicated above.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
Application U/s 482 No. 29717 of 2013
Kahkashan Begum & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp.Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Shabana Nizam
Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Shibli Naseem
Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of criminal
proceeding-offence u/s 323, 384, 504,
506 IPC-on ground of misuse of process
of law and malicious prosecution -as a
counter blast to criminal case pending
against respondent 2-admittedly
the
applicant and respondent 2 are husband
wife-matrimonial
dispute
going
onmediation failed-all allegations general
in
nature-not
corroborated
by
independent evidence-even if accepted
to be true-not disclose any offenceentire proceeding including summoning
order quashed.
Held: Para-7
Considered the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
It is admitted case that applicant no.1
and op. party no.2 are husband and wife
who were married to each other in the
year 2006 according to Muslim traditions
and there appears to have been some
bitterness between them after marriage
and she was being tortured by her
husband opp. party no.2 and her in-laws for
demand of a colour T.V. and a motorcycle
from applicant no.1 and her parents, which
could not be fulfilled and on account of
which harassment which was made by opp.
party
no.2
and
his
family
members
physically and mentally, the applicant no.1
who was carrying a child in her womb
became
so
much
1 All] Kahkashan Begum & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
345
stressed and gave a birth of a dead child
in the year 2008 and ultimately she was
ousted from her in-laws matrimonial
home on 1.10.2012. The opp. party no.2
is also facing prosecution at the hands
of his wife wife applicant no.1 in which
he and his family members are being
prosecuted and proceedings initiated by
him against his wife and her family
members who are applicants in the
present case are only vague and general
allegations have been made which does
not corroborate by any independent and
cogent evidence excepting his evidence
and his family members and even if the
same is taken to be true on the face of
it, the same does not disclose any
offence
against
the
applicant.
The
prosecution of the applicant further
appears to be a malicious one which has
been initiated by op. party no.2 against
the applicant no.1 and her family
members
to
pressurize
them
to
withdraw
the
criminal
prosecution
launched against them by the applicants
for the offence under Section 498 I.P.C.
etc.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)
1. Heard Ms. Shabana Nizam,
learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Shibli Naseem, learned cousnel for opp.
party no.2 and Sri R.K. Maurya,learned
A.G.A. for the State.
2.
The applicants, through
the
present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to
quash
the
entire
proceedings
of
complaint case no.1548 of 2012 (Mohd.
Sarfaraz Vs. Kahkashan Begum and
others), under Sections 384,323,504
I.P.C., Police Station Jafrabad, District
Jaunpur, pending in the court of Ist,
Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur as well as
summoning order dated 10.7.2013 passed
in the aforesaid complaint case.
3. No counter affidavit has been
filed by learned counsel for opp. party
no.2 or learned AGA for the State.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the
marriage of applicant no.1 and opp. party
no.2 was solemnized on 20.2.2006
according to Muslim rites and rituals and
sufficient household articles and other
gifts were given in the said marriage.
When the applicant no.1 went to her inlaws' house, her in-laws were not satisfied
with the aritles given in the marriage and
they started demanding a colour T.V. and
a motorcycle from the applicant no.1 and
her parents and for which the applicant
no.1 was being tortured and cruelly
treated by them, but she continued to
discharge her matrimonial obligations. In
the year 2008 she was so badly beaten and
on account of which she gave birth to a
dead baby. Ultimately, She was ousted
from the house on 1.10.2012 as she gave
birth to a dead child. Thereafter, the
applicant no.1 tried to lodge an FIR
against her husband opp.party no.2 but in
spite of her efforts the same could not be
registered, hence she filed a complaint
before the Court below which was registered
as Complaint Case No.645 of 2013
(Kahkashan Vs. Sarfaraz and others). The
opp. party no.2 in retaliation filed the present
complaint against his wife who is applicant
no.1 and her family members on 20.10.2012,
on which the statement of opp. party no.2
was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
his witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
respectively and the applicants have been
summoned by the learned Magistrate vide
order dated 10.7.2013 to face the trial for the
offence
under
Sections
384,323,5-04
I.P.C.,Police
Station
Jafrabad,
District
Jaunpur. Hence, the present 482 Cr.P.C.
application has been filed by the applicants
for quashing the entire proceedings of the
346
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present
complaint
case
as
well
as
summoning order.
5.
It has been contended by the
learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant no.1 is the wife of opp. party
no.2 and she after her marriage was
tortured and cruelly treated by opp. party
no.2 and his family members, for which
the applicant no.1 had filed a complaint
under Section 498A etc. against opp.
party no.2 and his family and they have
been summoned by the trial court and are
facing the prosecution, in order to harass
the applicant no.1 and her family
members the op. party no.2 has filed the
present complaint as a pressure tactics to
the applicant no.1 to withdraw her
complaint which she has filed against
opp. party no.2. He further submits that
the present complaint filed by opp. party
no.2 against the applicant is nothing but a
misuse of the process of the law for
malicious prosecution of the applicants.
Moreover, no offence whatsoever is
disclosed against the applicants at all as
the compliant is a vague and bald
allegations have been made in the
complaint against the applicants by opp.
party no.2 He further submits that matter
was earlier taken up by this court on
25.9.2013 and the same was referred to
the Mediation Centre of this court vide
order dated 25.9.2013 for settlement of
their dispute, but the mediation has failed
on 27.11.2013.
6. Learned counsel for opp. party
no.2 as well as learned AGA on the other
hand, opposed the prayer for quashing of
the proceedings as well as summoning
order, but they could not dispute the fact
that opp. party no.2 who is husband of
applicant no.1 is also facing prosecution
at her hands in matrimonial litigation.
7.
Considered
the
submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available on
record. It is admitted case that applicant no.1
and op. party no.2 are husband and wife who
were married to each other in the year 2006
according to Muslim traditions and there
appears to have been some bitterness
between them after marriage and she was
being tortured by her husband opp. party
no.2 and her in-laws for demand of a colour
T.V. and a motorcycle from applicant no.1
and her parents, which could not be fulfilled
and on account of which harassment which
was made by opp. party no.2 and his family
members physically and mentally, the
applicant no.1 who was carrying a child in
her womb became so much stressed and
gave a birth of a dead child in the year 2008
and ultimately she was ousted from her inlaws matrimonial home on 1.10.2012. The
opp. party no.2 is also facing prosecution at
the hands of his wife wife applicant no.1 in
which he and his family members are being
prosecuted and proceedings initiated by him
against his wife and her family members
who are applicants in the present case are
only vague and general allegations have been
made which does not corroborate by any
independent and cogent evidence excepting
his evidence and his family members and
even if the same is taken to be true on the
face of it, the same does not disclose any
offence
against
the
applicant.
The
prosecution of the applicant further appears
to be a malicious one which has been
initiated by op. party no.2 against the
applicant no.1 and her family members to
pressurize them to withdraw the criminal
prosecution launched against them by the
applicants for the offence under Section 498
I.P.C. etc.
8. In view of the foregoing discussions,
the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint
1 All] Union of India & Ors. Vs. Addl. District Judge & Ors.
347
case no.1548 of 2012 (Mohd. Sarfaraz Vs.
Kahkashan Begum and others), as well as
summoning order 10.7.2013 are hereby
quashed.
The
present
482
Cr.P.C.
application stands allowed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
Writ -C No. 30711 of 20003
Union of India & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. District Judge & Ors. ..Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ajit Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri P.K. Jain, Sri Vikrant Rana
Arbitration
Act-Section-30-Jurisdiction
of
arbitrator-once award made rule-appellate
authority remanded for fresh considerationarbitrator already retired before order of
remand-held-can not be allowed to take
breath of hot and cold wave-once petitioner
participated proceeding before arbitratorcan
not
be
allowed
to
say
without
jurisdiction.
Held: Para-14
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in view of the various decisions of
Hon'ble Apex Court, it is no longer open to
the petitioners, Union of India to challenge
that the award was without jurisdiction as
Shri Ashok Kumar, the Sole Arbitrator had
no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter
after his retirement.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1988 SC 205; (2012) 12 SCC 513; (1998)
2 SCC 89; (2014) 11 SCC 366.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners
and
Shri
Vikrant
Rana
appearing for the contesting respondents.
2. The facts of the case in brief are
that a contract was entered into between
the Union of India and the respondent
no.3 (M/s P.A.B.(India) Private Ltd.,
Partapur (hereinafter referred to as the
'Firm") on 22.02.1990 for construction of
Air Conditioning Accommodation for
data entry system at Ordinance Factory,
Muradnagar. Subsequently, the time for
completion of work was extended till
30.09.1991. Thereafter, certain disputes
arose between the parties and as per
clause 70 of the agreement, the matter
was referred to sole Arbitrator. The Chief
Engineer
Bareilly
Zone,
Bareilly
appointed Shri Ashok Kumar, Additional
Chief
Engineer
(Planning),
CEBZ
Bareilly as Arbitrator by letter dated
15.12.1992. The Arbitrator gave its award
on 21.01.1994 awarding certain amount in
favour of the Firm. The Firm also filed an
application under Section 14 of the
Arbitration Act for making the award,
Rule of the Court. The petitioners filed
objection under Section 30 of the
Arbitration Act before the Court below.
By order dated 26.10.1996, the IVth
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Meerut rejected the objections of the
petitioners and allowed the case of the Firm.
This order dated 26.10.1996 was further
challenged by the Union of India before the
IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut by
filing Misc. Appeal No.414 of 1996. On
18.11.1997, the appeal was allowed and the
order dated 26.10.1996 passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division) Meerut making the
award, Rule of the Court was set aside and the
matter was remanded back to the sole
Arbitrator, Shri Ashok Kumar, Additional
Chief Engineer for decision afresh. Certain
findings were recorded by the Lower