Delhi High Court
Sarfaraz & Anr. vs State & Anr on 12 February, 2016
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th February, 2016
+ W.P.(CRL) 481/2016
SARFARAZ & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Arun Dhiman and Mr. Ayaz
Khan, Advocates along with
petitioners
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC (Crl.) with
Mr. Siddharth Sindhu, Advocate
SI Mukesh Kumar, P.S. Civil Lines
Mr. Mohd. Arif, Advocate for
Resp. no.2/complainant along with
Complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
quashing of FIR No. 371/2015 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at
Police Station- Civil Lines, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner no. 1 (husband) and
respondent No.2/complainant (wife) were married to each other according to
Muslim rites and customs on 18th October, 2013. Owing to temperamental
and ideological differences between the parties to the marriage, they started
living separately since 22nd July, 2014. No child has been born out of the
said wedlock. On a complaint instituted by respondent no.2 (wife), the
subject FIR was registered against the petitioner no. 1 (husband) and his
mother.
3. Counsel for the parties state that with the aid and assistance of Delhi
Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the outstanding matrimonial
dispute between the parties to the union has been settled amicably by way of
a Compromise Deed dated 23rd December, 2015. The salient terms and
conditions of the settlement as enshrined in the said Compromise Deed are
as follows:-
"1. It has been settled between the parties that the applicant
shall pay a total sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen
Lakhs Only) by way of cash/DD or cheque against valid
receipt along with mehar of 10 tola gold jewellery, to the
complainant as under:-
(i) Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) as well as
mehar of 10 tola gold jewellery shall be paid by the
applicant to the complainant on 05.01.2016 before the
Court of Ms. Neena Krishan Bansal, Principal Judge,
Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the
complainant shall withdraw the petition u/s 125 Cr.PC.
on receiving the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as well as
mehar of ten tola gold jewellery.
(ii) It has been agreed between the parties that both
parties shall file a joint application to withdraw
the complaint u/s 12 of DV Act pending before
the Court of Ms. Mona Tardi Kerketta, Ld. MM,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in terms of the above
noted settlement and at that time the applicant Dr.
Sarfaraz shall make a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakh only) to the complainant on or
before 20.01.2016.
(iii) Applicant Dr. Sarfaraz undertakes meanwhile i.e.
on or before 20.01.2016 he will withdraw the
captioned suit for permanent injunction with
consequential relief of mandatory injunction for
restitution of conjugal rights filed before the
Court of Ms. Roopa, Ld. Civil Judge, (Junior
Division), Nuh, District Mewat, Haryana on or
before 20.01.2016 and shall make a statement
before the Court of Ms. Mona Tardi Kerketta, Ld.
MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi that he has
withdrawn the above mentioned suit from the
concerned Court.
(iv) It has been agreed between the parties that
applicant shall make a payment of Rs. 4,00,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakh only) when complainant shall
make statement before the Hon'ble High Court in
petition to be filed by both the parties for
quashing of the FIR bearing no. 371/2015, PS
Civil Lines, u/s 498A/406/34 IPC before the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The complainant
shall cooperate with the applicant and also shall
file her affidavit for the quashing of the FIR. She
will also make a statement in terms of the
compromise arrived between the parties before
the Hon'ble High Court. The said petition for
quashing the FIR shall be filed on or before
05.02.2016."
4. In a nutshell, it has been agreed by and between the parties to the
union that respondent no. 2 (wife) shall be paid a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs
towards all her claims against the petitioners.
5. Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the said settlement
between the parties to the union, the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs has already been
received by respondent no.2 (wife). The balance sum of Rs. 4 lakh has been
paid to respondent no. 2 (wife) today. The latter acknowledges receipt
thereof.
6. Counsel for the parties also state that pursuant to the settlement
arrived at between the parties to the union, a Talaqnama in accordance with
Muslim Personal Law has already been executed between the parties on 5th
February, 2016.
7. Ms. Najma Bano, the respondent No.2/complainant (wife), who is
present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer i.e. SI
Mukesh Kumar, Police Station- Civil Lines, Delhi, states that in pursuance to
the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, she is no longer
keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings emanating
therefrom.
8. Since the dispute between the parties which arose out of a matrimonial
discord between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and resulted in the
registration of the subject FIR, has been settled amicably by way of a
Compromise Deed dated 23rd December, 2015, without any undue influence,
pressure or coercion; as the parties have obtained Talaqnama on 5th
February, 2016; and the settlement between the parties is lawful, no useful
purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the
proceedings arising therefrom.
9. Resultantly, the FIR No. 371/2015 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC
registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, Delhi and the proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua all the petitioners subject to
their depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each with the Victims' Compensation
Fund within a period of two weeks from today. A copy of the receipt thereof
shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.
10. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2016
sd
