# Mubassir @ Musavir @ Guddoo & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1100
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 6277 of 2003
- **Bench:** Shri Kant Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mubassir-musavir-guddoo-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-41790
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section 482-Quashing of Criminal
proceeding-offence u/s 364 IPC-read
with
Section
3(2)(v)
of
SC/SC
(prevention
of
atrocities)
Actprosecutrix-on her own proceeded with
applicant-solemnized marriage-living as
husband and wife-with their wedlock
two children born-as per statement
recorded before C.J.M.-in view of Lalta
Singh case-futile exercise to proceed
with Trail-quashed-application allowed.

Held: Para-7
In view of the fact that the prosecutrix and
the petitioner no. 1 have solemnized
marriage and are peacefully living together
as husband and wife and two children have
also born from their wedlock, it would be a
futile exercise to proceed with the trial
against the petitioners, therefore, quashing
of the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal
case would not only be in the interest of
justice but also would be in accordance
with the aforesaid verdict of the Apex
Court.

Case Law discussed:
2006(2) Supreme Court Cases (Crl.)

## Text

1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1899 there was no provision empowering
Collector to impose penalty in case the
value of property set forth in document
presented for registration is not true
market value of the entire value and there
is a deficiency of stamp duty. Such a
provision has been brought in statute book
by amendment made in U.P. vide Act No.
38 of 2001. This amendment is not
retrospective. The law before aforesaid
amendment was clear that no penalty
could have been imposed and, therefore,
imposition of penalty in the present case
is without jurisdiction. A Full Bench
decision of this Court in Girish Kumar
Srivastava Vs. State of U.P and others,
1998 (1) All.C.J. 199, has held that in the
absence of any provision authorizing the
Collector to impose penalty, the same
cannot be imposed.

23. The Full Bench, referred to
above, approved earlier Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Kaka Singh Vs.
Additional
Collector
and
District
Magistrate,
(Finance
and
Revenue)
Bulandshahr, AIR 1986 All 107. This has
been reiterated in a recent Full Bench
judgment in Ramesh Chandra Srivastava
vs. State of U.P., AIR 2007 Alld. 39.

24. In view thereof, the writ petition
is partly allowed. The impugned orders
dated 30.01.1996 and 06.12.2001, in so
far as penalty of Rs.13,74,500/- has been
imposed upon petitioner, being wholly
without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained
and are hereby set aside. Rest part of
orders is held valid and to that extent the
writ petition shall stand dismissed.

25. In view of partial success of both
the sides, there shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI KANT TRIPATHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 6277 of 2003
(U/s 482 Cr.P.C.)

Mubassir @ Musavir @ Guddoo & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Nasiruzzaman

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C.-Section 482-Quashing of Criminal
proceeding-offence u/s 364 IPC-read
with
Section
3(2)(v)
of
SC/SC
(prevention
of
atrocities)
Actprosecutrix-on her own proceeded with
applicant-solemnized marriage-living as
husband and wife-with their wedlock
two children born-as per statement
recorded before C.J.M.-in view of Lalta
Singh case-futile exercise to proceed
with Trail-quashed-application allowed.

Held: Para-7
In view of the fact that the prosecutrix and
the petitioner no. 1 have solemnized
marriage and are peacefully living together
as husband and wife and two children have
also born from their wedlock, it would be a
futile exercise to proceed with the trial
against the petitioners, therefore, quashing
of the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal
case would not only be in the interest of
justice but also would be in accordance
with the aforesaid verdict of the Apex
Court.

Case Law discussed:
2006(2) Supreme Court Cases (Crl.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.)
3 All]. Mubassir @ Musavir @ Guddoo & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1101

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned AGA for the
respondent no.1 and perused the record.

2. None appeared for the respondent
no.1.

3. Counter affidavit and rejoinder
affidavit have been exchanged.

4. This is a petition under section
482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings of
the criminal case arising out of crime no.
227 of 2003 under section 364 IPC and
section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, police station Didauli,
district J.P. Nagar.

5. The main contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that
the prosecutrix has herself proceeded with
the petitioner no. 1 and solemnized the
marriage with him and since then she is
living as his wife. Two children have also
borne from their wedlock. On the
direction of this Court, the statement of
the prosecutrix was recorded by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar before
whom the prosecutrix supported the story
of marriage and stated that she herself
went in the company of the petitioner
no.1. Other petitioners are the relatives of
the husband. The counsel for the
petitioners further submitted that in view
of the fact that the victim and the
petitioner no.1 are living as husband and
wife and two children have also borne
from their wedlock, it would be futile
exercise to proceed with the trial. It was
further submitted that according to the
school record and other materials the
prosecutrix was major on the date of
occurrence and was, therefore, competent
to accord consent.

6. In the case of Lata Singh vs. State
of U.P. & another 2006 (2) Supreme
Court Cases(Crl.), page 478, the Apex
Court has propounded the following
principle:

"...This is a free and democratic
country, and once a person becomes a
major he or she can marry whosoever
he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or
girl do not approve of such inter-caste or
inter-religious marriage the maximum
they can do is that they can cut off social
relations with the son or the daughter, but
they cannot give threats or commit or
instigate acts of violence and cannot
harass the person who undergoes such
inter-caste or inter- religious marriage.
We,
therefore,
direct
that
the
administration/police
authorities
throughout the country will see to it that if
any boy or girl who is a major undergoes
inter-caste or inter-religious marriage
with a woman or man who is a major, the
couple are not harassed by any one nor
subjected to threats or acts of violence,
and any one who gives such threats or
harasses or commits acts of violence
either himself or at his instigation, is
taken to task by instituting criminal
proceedings by the police against such
persons and further stern action is taken
against such persons as provided by
law........"

7. In view of the fact that the
prosecutrix and the petitioner no. 1 have
solemnized marriage and are peacefully
living together as husband and wife and
two children have also born from their
wedlock, it would be a futile exercise to
proceed with the trial against the
petitioners, therefore, quashing of the
proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case
would not only be in the interest of justice
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
but also would be in accordance with the
aforesaid verdict of the Apex Court.

8. The petition under section 482
CrPC is allowed. Consequently the
proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case
are quashed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.09.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI (II), J.

Misc. Bench No. 8898 of 2014

Mohd. Nasir Husain ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Afzal Hasan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-25 & 26-
Seeking
permission
to
sacrifice
the
buffalo-in madarsa or school on occasion
of Idul Zuha-by Muslim community-held
considering little hardship of particular
community-administration or the court
can not compromise with sanctity of
institution-in
absence
of
statutory
provision
or
rights
granted
under
constitution-Court are loath to grant
indulgence-state authority to consider
and take appropriate decision-keeping in
view of statutory and constitutional
provision-petition disposed of.

Held: Para-18
While preferring the Writ Petition, the
petitioner has not come forward with the
pleading to indicate that some statutory or
Constitutional rights has been granted to
Muslim community by the Parliament or the
State Legislature to sacrifice buffaloes at
any place including Madarsa or schools. In
the like manner, for every community,
Hindus or Christians, rights conferred by the
Constitution
or
the
statute
may
be
protected by the Courts, being custodian of
law. But in the event of right which is not
guaranteed by the Constitution, or by any
statute legislated by the Parliament or the
State Legislature within their jurisdiction,
the Courts are loath to interfere and grant
indulgence.

Case Law discussed:
2011 (5) ADJ 674; AIR 1958 SC 255; AIR 1984
SC 51; AIR 1954 SC 388; AIR 1954 SC 282.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

1 Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Sri Afzal Hasan, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Standing Counsel.

2 The present writ petition under
Article 226 has been preferred being
aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the
district administration in not permitting the
petitioner and his Muslim community to
perform their religious rites, "Qurbani"
(sacrifice) which according to petitioner's
counsel is the message of Holy Quran. It is
submitted that the petitioner possesses
fundamental right conferred by Articles 25
and 26 of the Constitution of India to
perform the religious rites of Quarbani under
Personal Law and practice.

The petitioner in the present writ
petition, has claimed for following reliefs:-

(i) issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the Opp.
Parties to permit the petitioner and other
members of Muslim community to sacrifice
buffalo on the occasion of Idul-Zuha in
Village-Sattijor, Post-Bankasahi, ParganaCharda, Tehsil-Nanpara, District-Bahraich.