Delhi High Court
Akram Saeed Khan @ Akram And Others vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 3 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.07.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 4954/2024
AKRAM SAEED KHAN @ AKRAM & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.H.K.Dhariwal, Advocate (through
VC) with petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Ms.Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with
SI Anugraha, P.S. Welcome.
Mr.Varun Jawla, Advocate 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. 370/2021, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC & Section 4 of D.P. Act
registered at P.S.: Welcome and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 along with respondent No. 2 appear on advance notice and
accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner
No.1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 04.02.2018. Learned counsel
for the petitioners has pointed out that the said marriage was performed
according to Muslims rites and ceremonies though the same has been
wrongly reflected as 'Hindu rites and ceremonies' in the petition due to
typographical error. A female child was born out of the wedlock. Due to
temperamental differences, respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 started
living separately. On complaint of respondent No. 2, present FIR was
registered on 27.07.2021.
4. The disputes have been amicably resolved between the parties in terms
of Settlement Agreement dated 13.04.2022 and both petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 thereafter are stated to be residing together.
5. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
6. Petitioners No.1, 3, 5 to 7 and respondent No. 2 are present in person
and have been identified by SI Anugraha, P.S.: Welcome. Presence of
petitioners No.2 and 4 is exempted. 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.
7. 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. 370/2021, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC &
Section 4 of D.P. Act registered at P.S.: Welcome and the proceedings
emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
JULY 03, 2024/v
