Delhi High Court
Fawadullah Khan @ Fawabullah Khan And ... vs State (Nct) Of Delhi And Another on 14 February, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 14.02.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 1202/2024
FAWADULLAH KHAN @
FAWABULLAH KHAN & OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mohd. Sajid and Mr.Abdullah Bin
Masood, Advocates with Petitioners-
in-person.
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Kiran Bairwa, APP with
SI Sandeep Yadav, PS: Punjabi Bagh.
Mr.Ajeet Kumar, Mr.Chandra Gupta
Maurya and Mr.Yogesh Kumar,
Advocates with respondent No. 2 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of
FIR No. 54/2018, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S.:
Punjabi Bagh and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 alongwith respondent No.2 in person appear on advance
notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioner, nikah between petitioner
No.1 and respondent No. 2 took place according to Muslim rites and
ceremonies on 13.08.2017. No child was born out of the wedlock. Due to
temperamental differences, respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 started
living separately. Present FIR was registered on 02.02.2018 at the instance of
respondent No.2.
4. It is further the case of petitioner No.1 that he decided for separation
from respondent No.2 by way of divorce through Talaq-e-Hasan and as per
law, made pronouncement of Talaq after each tuhr through
notice/communication dated 22.09.2017, 19.10.2017 and 01.12.2017.
Petitioner No.1, thereafter filed a suit for declaration seeking status of
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 as divorced, which was granted vide
decree dated 09.12.2023.
5. The matter is stated to have been now amicably settled between the
parties, in terms of Settlement/Compromise Deed dated 23.08.2023 arrived
at Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Balance amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- has been paid to respondent No. 2
through Demand Draft No. 315069 dated 19.01.2024 drawn on State Bank of
India, New Delhi Main Branch, in favour of respondent No. 2 towards full
and final settlement between the parties.
6. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
7. Petitioners No.2 and 3 joined through V.C. but could not be connected
due to technical glitch. Petitioner No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 are
present in person and have been identified by SI Sandeep Yadav, PS: Punjabi
Bagh. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has
been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion.
Respondent No. 2 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated
upon between the parties and she has no objection in case the FIR in question
is quashed.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by
keeping the case pending. It would be nothing but an abuse of the process of
Court. Consequently, FIR No. 54/2018, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC
registered at P.S.: Punjabi Bagh and the proceedings emanating therefrom
stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application, if any, also
stands disposed of.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
FEBRUARY 14, 2024/v
