Tauhid Ali & ORS. v. State & ANR.

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1602/2019 TAUHID ALI & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Sunil Dalal and Mr.

Pradeep Sehrawat, Advs. with the petitioners in person versus STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghei, APP with SI Madan Mohan, PS Ranhola, Delhi Ms. M.K. Saroja and Mr.

Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advs. for R-2 with R-2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 Crl.M.A.6402/2019 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1602/2019 1.

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.356/2015, under Sections 498-406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at P.S.: Ranhola, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

2.

The petitioners and respondent No.2 as well as their respective counsel submitted that the parties have settled their disputes on their own free will, without any force or coercion before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 17.1.2017, in terms whereof the petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent No.2. It is further submitted that out of Rs.3,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has already been paid to the respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.1 has pronounced talaq (Talaq-e-hasan) to respondent No.2 thrice as per the Shariat law. 3.

Respondent No.2, who is present in Court, has reiterated the aforesaid facts and submitted that she has no objection to the petition being allowed and the FIR being quashed in case the petitioners pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to her, which is required to be paid as per the settlement arrived at between the parties.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have brought a demand draft bearing No.314518, dated 2.3.2019, drawn on Bank of Baroda, for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which has been handed over to the respondent No.2 today in the Court.

5.

The Investigating Officer ('IO'), who is present in Court, has identified the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 and has also verified the settlement arrived at between the parties.

6.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the settlement arrived at between the parties and the talaq pronounced by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the parties entangled in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, FIR No.356/2015, under Sections 498406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S.: Ranhola, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

7.

Petition is disposed of in above terms.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MARCH 27, 2019 rk