Haidar Ali and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.

Haidar Ali and Others. vs State of U.P. and Others.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 03, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/912157

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/912157
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Imtiyaz Murtaza ; Naheed Ara Moonis, J.J.
Decided On: Jul 03, 2010
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11678 of 2010.
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.] - Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Sections 104 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2, 2A, 3A, 4 and 10 - Order 43, Rule 1; Constitution of India - Article 227 - Orders from which appeal lies -- When a plaintiff rushed to the civil court for an ex-parte interimorder of injunction against some of the ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4 ; Indian Penal Code,(IPC) 1860, Sections 498-A, 323, 506 ;

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Haidar Ali and Others.

Advocate S.K. Dubey, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others.

Advocate Neeraj Singh, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4 ; Indian Penal Code,(IPC) 1860, Sections 498-A, 323, 506 ;

Excerpt

[k.t. thomas and; r.p. sethi, jj.] - civil procedure code (cpc) - sections 104 - order 39, rules 1, 2, 2a, 3a, 4 and 10 - order 43, rule 1; constitution of india - article 227 - orders from which appeal lies -- when a plaintiff rushed to the civil court for an ex-parte interimorder of injunction against some of the defendants and obtained it, those defendants rushed to the high court to get that order quashed. appellant-plaintiff filed the suit on 25.6.1999 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant nos.1 to 5 from dispossessing him. documents perused. ad interim injunction till then. order 39 rule 3 to be complied with. after holding thus learned single judge directed the trial court to take up the interlocutory application for injunction and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. order 43 rule 1 says that: an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104 namely. an order under rule 1, rule 2, rule 2a, rule 4 or rule 10 of order 39. the choice is for the party affected by the order either to move the appellate court or to approach the same court which passed the ex parte order for any relief. learned senior counsel for the respondents then contended that an order granting injunction without complying with the requisites envisaged in rule 3 of order 39 be void. learned single judge stated that the trial court ought not to have granted ex parte injunction beyond thirty days to be in force. the aforesaid rule casts a three-pronged protection to the party against whom the ex parte injunction order was passed. second is the legal obligation that if for any valid reasons the court could not finally dispose of the application within the aforesaid time the court has to record the reasons thereof in writing......in the mediation centre on the date fixed. the said notice shall be served upon the respondent no.3 through c.j.m concerned. it needs hardly be said that both the parties shall appear either on the date fixed or on a future date as may be agreed before the mediation centre for reconciliation. the centre shall submit a report within one month from the date of parties appearing before it for reconciliation. the case shall be listed in the second week of september, 2010 along with report of mediation centre. in the meanwhile, the arrest of the petitioners in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed.5. it may be made clear that in case, there occurs default by the petitioner either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the mediation centre on the date or dates fixed, the interim order staying arrest shall cease to be operative and the mediation centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the bench concerned for passing appropriate order in the matter. it may be clarified that the case will not be treated as tied up to this bench shall be listed before the appropriate bench. copy of this order will not be issued unless steps are taken.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and also learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. The argument substantially is that fraught relation emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide F.I.R. which was registered at case crime No.756 of 2010, under Sections 498-A,323,506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Shamli, District Muzafrar Nagar.

2. Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, we have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties.

3. While referring the matter to Mediation Centre with the consent of the petitioners, it is directed that petitioner No.1 shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Mediation Centre by way of Bank draft drawn in favour of Mediation Centre, High Court Allahabad out of which a sum of Rs. 7,000/- shall be payable to the Opp party no.3 and there maining amount shall be kept for being utilized by the Mediation Centre. The amount aforesaid, it is further directed, shall be paid over to the Opp party No.3 on her appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed. The amount aforesaid, it may be clarified, are meant to meet expenses to be incurred for attending mediation sessions at Allahabad for the Opp. Party no.3 and the person escorting her.

4. The office upon deposit of the Bank draft shall issue notice within one week to respondent no.3 i.e the wife calling upon her to appear in the Mediation Centre at Allahabad High Court on a date to be indicated in the said notice stating therein that the Bank draft deposited by the petitioner shall be delivered in the Mediation centre on the date fixed. The said notice shall be served upon the respondent no.3 through C.J.M concerned. It needs hardly be said that both the parties shall appear either on the date fixed or on a future date as may be agreed before the Mediation Centre for reconciliation. The centre shall submit a report within one month from the date of parties appearing before it for reconciliation. The case shall be listed in the second week of September, 2010 along with report of Mediation Centre. In the meanwhile, the arrest of the petitioners in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed.

5. It may be made clear that in case, there occurs default by the petitioner either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date or dates fixed, the interim order staying arrest shall cease to be operative and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the Bench concerned for passing appropriate order in the matter. It may be clarified that the case will not be treated as tied up to this Bench shall be listed before the appropriate Bench. Copy of this order will not be issued unless steps are taken.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Haidar Ali and Others. vs State of U.P. and Others. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Imtiyaz Murtaza ; Naheed Ara Moonis, J.J. Acts & Sections Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4 ; Indian Penal Co...

Criminal