Delhi High Court
Mohd Asim & Ors vs State & Anr on 9 November, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~28
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3672/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 9th November, 2011
MOHD ASIM & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. M.L. Yadav, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
Mr. Shoaib Shakeel, Adv. for
R2/complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? NO
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 17530/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 3672/2011
1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.
424/2006 was registered against the petitioners on the
complaint of respondent No. 2/Ms. Talat Feroz, P.S. Lahori
Gate, under Sections 498/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2 It is submitted that the all the disputes among the
parties have been settled qua settlement dated 12.10.2011,
arrived at between them at Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre. The relevant portion of the settlement is
produced herein above.
"6 The following settlement has been arrived at
between he parties hereto :
a) That the first party i.e. Mohd. Asim has agreed to
divorce the second party i.e. Ms. Talat Firoz and both
the parties shall file the joint application before the
Hon'ble Court for quashing of FIR bearing No.
424/2006, P.S. Lahori Gate and the first party i.e. Mohd.
Asim shall produce the Talaknama signed by Mohd.
Asim as well as the two witnesses and both the parties
shall remain present on the date of the hearing for
recording their respective statements.
b) That the first party i.e. Mohd. Azim has also
agreed not to claim the child custody of the daughter
i.e. Baby Fatima in future.
c) That the second party has agreed not to initiate
any proceedings qua the maintenance of the second
party against the first party in any manner whatsoever.
d) That both the parties have agreed to withdraw all
the proceedings, if any, pending before any court of
law against each other.
3 Consequent, to the said settlement, the petitioner No. 1
has pronounced "Talak" to respondent No. 2 today. A letter
to this effect, which is witnessed by two witnesses is taken
on record.
4 Respondent No.2/Ms. Talat Feroz is personally present
in the court today. She has been duly identified by her
counsel, Mr. Shoaib Shakeel, Advocate.
5 Mr. Shoaib Shakeel, Advocate upon instructions of
respondent No. 2 submits that respondent No. 2 has settled
all the disputes qua the above mentioned FIR with the
petitioners and she does not want to pursue the case further.
She has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
6 Learned APP for State submits that the matter is listed
for recording Prosecution Evidence at the trial court.
7 She further submits that since the Government
Machinery has been misused and the precious time of the
court has been wasted, the petitioners shall be imposed with
heavy costs before quashing the FIR.
8 I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for
State.
9 Accordingly, the petitioner No. 1 shall deposit a costs of
Rs.25,000/- to be paid in the Welfare Fund of Delhi Police
within a week from today. Proof of the payment of costs shall
be placed on record.
10 In the above circumstances and in the interest of
justice, I quash FIR No. 424/2006, P.S. Lahori Gate under
Sections 498 A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the
proceedings emanating therefrom.
11 Criminal M.C. 3672/2011 is disposed of.
12 Dasti to both the parties.
SURESH KAIT,J
NOVEMBER 09, 2011/j
