# Rashim v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2005) 3 ILRA 1006
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-08-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 8650 of 2005
- **Bench:** Mrs. Poonam Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rashim-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40560
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-S-482Quashing
of
Criminal
Proceeding-
offence under 498-A, 323 IPC-Trail of
other co-accused ended in acquittal-all
the
prosecution
witnesses
became
hostile-if
trail
allowed
against
the
applicant-amounts to wart age of timeheld-principle
of
"stare
decise"
applicable-proceeding quashed.

Held- Para 2 & 3

The witnesses were declared hostile and
finally the trial has ended in acquittal. In
the circumstances, the claim of the
applicant is that there is no prospect of
the case ending in conviction if allowed
to continue against the applicant. It will
3 All] Rashim V. State of U.P. and another
1007
only result in wastage of valuable time of
the Court. If the trial is allowed to
continue, it will be sheer formality and,
therefore, the applicant has claimed that
she should be given the benefit of
principle
of
''stare
decisis'
and
proceedings should be quashed.

In
the
circumstances, I
allow this
application and grant the benefit of
principle of stare decisis and criminal
proceedings
initiated
against
the
applicant
on
the
basis
of
first
information report registered at case
Crime No. 21 of 2002, under Sections
498-A, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar is
quashed. The application is allowed.
Case law discussed:
2004 (1) JIC-508

## Text

1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
candidates for the post who have not
worked with NOIDA Authority and their
performance is equal but not otherwise.

28. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has tired to point out minor
mistakes in the photo copies of the
documents filed in Writ petition No.
54320 of 2005 to establish a case against
the respondents, such as that copy of
Annexure P 4 at page 31 is not endorsed
to any contractor; the name of Sri Shyam
shown along with other employees
working as contract labour is not junior
Engineer but a Computer Operator.
Similar mistakes have been pointed out in
Annexure P 5 wherein it is claimed that
the inspection report sis signed by the
petitioners as the signatures of NOIDA
Officer. Annexure P 7 is said to have been
signed by one of the employees as In
charge showing loading and unloading of
vehicles. These discrepancies emphasized
by
the
petitioners
are
irrelevant.
Relationship of
master and
servant
between the petitioners which may have
typographical or clerical errors. Such
mistakes will not crate the relationship.
The burden of proof has to be discharged
before the adjudicating authority. The
documents have to be proved as has
rightly been held by the courts by oral
evidence as it is pure question of fact
which cannot be decided in writ petition
merely on the basis of photocopies of
some documents filed or the first time
before the High Court. The NOIDA
Authority has not denied the engagement
of the petitioners through contract labour,
hence even if the petitioners have signed
the inspection report etc. the same does
not support their case. What really matters
is the nature of their appointment and who
has appointed them

29. I have already dealt with other
legal contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners in this judgment which are
common in both the petitions and need
not be repeated.

30. For the reasons stated above
these petitions are dismissed. No order as
o costs.
Petition dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 8650 of
2005

Rashim

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri P.K. Bhardwaj

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

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-S-482Quashing
of
Criminal
Proceeding-
offence under 498-A, 323 IPC-Trail of
other co-accused ended in acquittal-all
the
prosecution
witnesses
became
hostile-if
trail
allowed
against
the
applicant-amounts to wart age of timeheld-principle
of
"stare
decise"
applicable-proceeding quashed.

Held- Para 2 & 3

The witnesses were declared hostile and
finally the trial has ended in acquittal. In
the circumstances, the claim of the
applicant is that there is no prospect of
the case ending in conviction if allowed
to continue against the applicant. It will
3 All] Rashim V. State of U.P. and another
1007
only result in wastage of valuable time of
the Court. If the trial is allowed to
continue, it will be sheer formality and,
therefore, the applicant has claimed that
she should be given the benefit of
principle
of
''stare
decisis'
and
proceedings should be quashed.

In
the
circumstances, I
allow this
application and grant the benefit of
principle of stare decisis and criminal
proceedings
initiated
against
the
applicant
on
the
basis
of
first
information report registered at case
Crime No. 21 of 2002, under Sections
498-A, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar is
quashed. The application is allowed.
Case law discussed:
2004 (1) JIC-508

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for availing the
benefit of principle of stare decisis. A first
information report was lodged by the
contesting opposite party against six
persons including the present applicant
under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. read
with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police
Station
Sikandrabad,
District
Bulandshahar on 20.1.2002 which was
registered at case Crime No. 21 of 2002.
A charge sheet was submitted against the
accused persons. It appears that some of
the accused including the applicant had
approached this Court and got the
proceedings stayed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 62545 of 2002. The coaccused Vibhu, Vivek, Ravi, Rashmi,
Nirmala and Brij Lal Santoshi have been
given a clear verdict of acquittal vide
judgment dated 5.11.2004. A certified
copy of the judgment is annexed as
Annexure-3 to the affidavit. It is,
therefore, prayed that since the present
applicant is also an accused in the same
case crime number, the evidence is also
common. The witnesses were declared
hostile and finally the trial has ended in
acquittal. In the circumstances, the claim
of the applicant is that there is no prospect
of the case ending in conviction if
allowed to continue against the applicant.
It will only result in wastage of valuable
time of the Court. If the trial is allowed to
continue, it will be sheer formality and,
therefore, the applicant has claimed that
she should be given the benefit of
principle
of
''stare
decisis'
and
proceedings should be quashed. Reliance
has been placed on a decision of this
Court in the case of Narayan Rai Vs.
State of U.P. and another, 2004 (1)
J.I.C. 508 (Allahabad). I have gone
through the judgment of acquittal in
respect of the other co-accused and it is
apparent that P.W.-1 had supported the
prosecution story in examination-in-chief
but subsequently when he was recalled on
1.11.2004, he admitted that the accused
had made no demand of dowry from his
daughter and she was never subjected to
cruelty whatsoever. There was certain
differences between the husband and
wife, thus as a result his daughter has
come to her father's home. He had also
admitted that both the daughters have
been remarried and they have been given
alimony during the divorce proceedings
and in the circumstances, for want of
evidence, the judgment of acquittal was
recorded. I am satisfied that if the
proceeding against the present applicant is
allowed to continue, there will be no other
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
outcome but for the same verdict which
has been recorded in the other case.

3. In the circumstances, I allow this
application and grant the benefit of
principle of stare decisis and criminal
proceedings initiated against the applicant
on the basis of first information report
registered at case Crime No. 21 of 2002,
under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. read
with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police
Station
Sikandrabad,
District
Bulandshahar is quashed. The application
is allowed.
Application allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJOY NATH RAY, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52247 of 2005

Rishipal and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dr. H.N. Tripathi
Sri. Rajesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.P. Mathur
Sri C.B. Yadav, C.S.C.
Sri P.N. Rai,
C.S.C.

U.P. Industrial Area Development Act
1976-Section.12
A-read
with
Constitution of India.Act-243-Q-P/L-by
Notification Date 11.07.1989-about eight
villages
acquired
for
Industrial
Development
Area-Public
Interest
Petition-claming not to hold village
Panchayat election-neither specification
regarding township made for notification
for exclusion made as required under Act
243-Q-No Question of exclusion from
Panchayat arise-merely Notification u/s
2-(a)-ipso facts does not exclude from
Panchayat-Petition dismissed.

Held: Para 7, 8

From Section 12-A it further reveals that
if the said area is included in Panchayat
area, such area with effect from the date
of
notification
made
under
proviso
(proviso to article 243-Q) stand excluded
from such panchayat. Thus specification
to be an industrial township as well as a
notification under proviso to Article 243
are condition precedents for excluding
from any panchayat area. There is
nothing on the record to come to
conclusion that the area in question has
been specified as an industrial township.
Further no notification, as stated by
Chief Standing Counsel, has been issued
under proviso to Article 343 Q by the
State Government, hence, question of
exclusion of the area from panchayat
area does not arise.

Merely because the Villages in question
are covered under 2-(d) does not ipso
facto exclude them from Panchayat area.
As noted above neither it has been
specified as Industrial Township nor a
notification under Article 243-Q has been
issued. The relief claimed by the writ
petitioner in the writ petition cannot be
granted.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.)

1. These are the two writ petitions
filed as public interest litigations on same
facts and cause of action. Both writ
petitions being identical in nature are
decided by this common order.

2. It is sufficient to mention the facts
of writ petition No.52247 of 2005 for
deciding both the writ petitions. Writ
petition No.52247 of 2005 has been filed