Delhi High Court
Imamuddin & Ors. vs State on 16 July, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.C. No. 1679/2010
Decided on 16.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
IMAMUDDIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. F.A.Banisrael, Advocates along with
Petitioners No.1, 2, 3 & 6 in person
Petitioner No.7 in person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs. Santosh Kohli, APP for State
along with ASI Joginder Singh, PS SP.Badli.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. Pursuant to the order dated 17.5.2010, an additional affidavit of
petitioner No.7, sworn on 29.5.2010, is placed on the record. The petitioner
No.7 is present in the court and duly identified by the IO.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482
Cr.P.C., praying inter alia for quashing of the FIR No.247/2006 and
proceedings arising therefrom, lodged by the petitioner No.7 against her
husband, the petitioners No.1, and her in-laws, petitioners No.2 to 6, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered with PS Samaipur Badli.
3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner No.1 and petitioner
No.7 got married in the year 2002 as per the muslim rites and customs and
that no child was born from out of the wedlock. It is further stated that
petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.7 were not compatible with each other and
started to reside separately. In the year 2005, the petitioner No.7 made a
complaint against the petitioners No.1 to 6 in the CAW Cell, North-West
District. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR was got registered
at PS Samaipur Badli. However, in the interregnum, due to the intervention
of family members on both sides, the parties have arrived at an amicable
compromise, as recorded in the Compromise Deed dated 15.5.2006 (Pages
14 to 16). It is further stated that in terms of the compromise, the
petitioner No.7 has received a sum of Rs.50,000/- in full and final settlement
of all her claims against the petitioners No.1 to 6 and that the petitioner
No.1 has divorced the petitioner No.7 on 15.5.2006. It is further stated that
after the aforesaid compromise was arrived at between both the parties, the
petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.7 have gone their respective ways and
have re-married and in these circumstances, the aforesaid FIR and
proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed.
4. The parties are present in the court and confirm that the
averments made in the present petition are correct. Learned APP for the
State also states that in view of the compromise arrived at between the
parties, she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
5. The Court has perused the Compromise Deed dated 15.05.2006.
The parties, who are present in Court, confirm that they have arrived at the
aforesaid compromise of their own free will and volition and without any
undue influence or coercion from any quarters. There appears no legal
impediment in accepting the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Accordingly, the Compromise Deed dated 15.05.2006 is taken on the record.
The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions thereof. The
present petition is allowed. FIR No.247/2006 and all the proceedings arising
therefrom, stand quashed.
6. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JULY 16, 2010 JUDGE
mk
