# Mohd. Gufran @ Gufran v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 1084 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-01-12 - **Case number:** Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 16767 of 2020 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-gufran-gufran-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46752 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Civil Law-Matrimonial dispute-both party want to bury their differences-PartiesMuslim religion-both have accepted talaq (Khula Talaq)- Complaint quashed. W.P. disposed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: - ## Text 1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES to the freedom of choice of a grown up individual but would also be a threat to the concept of unity in diversity. An individual on attaining majority is statutorily conferred a right to choose a partner, which if denied would not only affect his/her human right but also his/her right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We say so for the reason that irrespective of the conversion being under clout, the mere fact that the couple was living together, the alleged relationship can very well be classified as a relationship in the nature of marriage distinct from the relationship arising out of marriage, in view of the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 15. The judgment in Priyanshi (supra) followed Noor Jahan (supra). None of these judgments dealt with the issue of life and liberty of two matured individuals in choosing a partner or their right to freedom of choice as to with whom they would like to live. We hold the judgments in Noor Jahan and Priyanshi as not laying good law. 16. We before parting wish to reiterate that we are quashing the FIR primarily on the ground that no offences are made out, as discussed above, as also the fact that two grown up individuals are before us, living together for over a year of their own free will and choice. The ultimate contention on behalf of the informant was that he be afforded visiting rights to meet his daughter. Once petitioner no. 4 has attained majority, then it is her choice, as to whom she would like to meet. We, however expect the daughter to extend all due courtseys and respect to her family. 17. We clarify that while deciding this petition, we have not commented upon the validity of alleged marriage/conversion. 18. In view of above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The F.I.R. dated 25.08.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0199 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 352, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Vishunpura, District Kushi Nagar as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. ---------- (2021)01ILR A1084 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 16767 of 2020 Mohd. Gufran @ Gufran ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kshitiz Shailendra Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A., Sri Dileep Singh Yadav Civil Law-Matrimonial dispute-both party want to bury their differences-PartiesMuslim religion-both have accepted talaq (Khula Talaq)- Complaint quashed. W.P. disposed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: - 1. Bitan Sengupta Vs St. of W.B., AIR 2018 SC (Supp) 1217, 2. Kamlesh Kalra Vs Shilpika Kalra & ors., 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 605 3. B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs St. of Har. & anr., 2003 0 Supreme (SC) 332 4. Application U/s 482 No. 13797 of 2020 1 All. Mohd. Gufran @ Gufran Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1085 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. & Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.) 1. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The accused is facing commission of offence u/s 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, lodged as Case Crime No. 460 of 2020, at Police Station- Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj. 3. The petitioner, Mohd. Gufran @ Gufran, is present before this Court. Respondent No.4, Smt. Huma, who is wife of Gufran and daughter of Visiuddin, is also present in this Court. 4. At this stage it is stated by both that they want to bury their differences and as this is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India and as the parties belong to Muslim religion and as now they have accepted the talaq which would now be turned and termed to be a khula talaq as per the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and as per the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. 5. The petitioner faces investigation as the F.I.R. culminated into case crime No. 460 of 2020. The husband faces some offences which can be said to be in the realm of noncompoundable offences. 6. Learned counsels for the parties have requested the Court that we may show indulgence and put at end to this litigation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgements of the Apex Court reported in Bitan Sengupta v. State of W.B., AIR 2018 SC (Supp) 1217, Kamlesh Kalra v. Shilpika Kalra & others, 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 605 and B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & another, 2003 0 Supreme(SC) 332 and also on judgement of this High Court passed in Application U/s 482 No. 13797 of 2020. 8. We do not opine whether it was a pressure technique or whether it was a genuine complaint. The parties have undertaken not to indulge in any litigation against each other in future and, therefore, we feel it proper to rely on the recent judgement of the Apex Court reported in Bitan Sengupta (supra) and reliance is also placed on order of this High Court passed in application U/s 482 No. 13797 of 2020 (Shokeen and Ors. vs. State of U.P. & another). 9. The petition is allowed. The complaint is quashed and set aside. 10. We thank both the learned Advocates for their support in seeing that this petition is amicably settled and disposed of. 11. Though the State counsel has his own reservations but as it is a private dispute and it does not affect public domain or public policy of the State, he states that this may not be treated as precedent in future. 12. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. 13. The joint affidavit is taken on record as we would not like to burden the Registry when the matter is over. ---------- 1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2021)01ILR A1086 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 11.01.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. Misc. Single No. 581 of 2021 C/M Ramnidhi Vidyalaya ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Gopal Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Akash Shukla, Azad Khan, Dilip Kumar Pandey Civil Law-Impugned order finalized proceedings u/s 67 of U.P. Revenue Code against Petitioner-as upon survey-he found to encroached Gaon sabha land- Tehsildar considered each and every point-including objectionAppellate Court also considered Petitioner's Appeal -no factual or legal infirmity in impugned ordersPetitioner's grievance that several other persons have encroached upon Gaon Sabha land and no proceeding initiated against them-not sustainable-Article 14 is not a negative concept-no parity can be claimed in illegality. W.P. dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: - 1. Jagpal Singh & ors. Vs St. of Pun. & ors.; (2011) (11) SCC 396 2. M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. Vs Radhey Shyam Sahu; (1999) (6) SCC 464 3. Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs Kamala Devi, AIR 2001 SC 3215, 4. C/M S.N. Public School through its Manager Smt. Sumitra Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ Petition No.25735 (M/S) of 2020 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the District Magistrate/ Collector, District Ayodhya and the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the Tehsildar, Milkipur, District Ayodhya, by which proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code were finalized against the petitioner and he was found to have encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land for public utility, namely, Gata No.3065 min. ad-measuring 0.073 hectare situated in Village Kotia Tehsil Milkipur, District Ayodhya and has been asked to deposit Rs.6,20,50,000/- for unauthorized occupation and utilization of Gaon Sabha public utility land and also to pay Rs.5,000/-as execution expenses. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had bought adjoining land of Gata No.3068 ad-measuring 0.0126 hectare situated in the same village from its recorded tenure holder through a sale deed in 2007 and constructed Sri Ramnidhi Smriti Shiksha Niketan Madhyamik Vidyalaya over it. On the other side of the road between Gata No.3068 and Gata No.3065, is banjar land recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The allegation is that the petitioner has encroached upon 0.073 hectares. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that no survey of the area concerned was done