← Library
High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./7675/2024

Akeel Khan & ORS. v. The State (Gnct Of Delhi) & ANR.

2024-10-08Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta2 pages

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 08.10.2024 + CRL.M.C. 7675/2024 AKEEL KHAN & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate with Petitioners-in-person.

versus THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP with SI Ritu Jaglan, PS: Subhash Place with Respondent No. 2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA %

J U D G M E N T

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL) 1.

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with 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. 0240/2017, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Subhash Place and proceedings emanating therefrom.

2.

In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized according to Muslim rites and ceremonies on 26.03.2011. Due to matrimonial differences, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 started living separately. On complaint of respondent No. 2, present FIR was registered on 26.05.2017. 3.

The disputes are stated to have been amicably settled between the CRL.M.C. 7675/2024 By:DINESH CHANDRA 19:49:28

parties in terms of MoU dated 17.05.2023, whereby, both petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are stated to be residing together. 4.

Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, he has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

5.

Petitioners (except petitioner No. 5, 7 and 8) and respondent No. 2 are present in person and have been identified by SI Ritu Jaglan, PS: Subhash Place. Presence of petitioner No. 5, 7 and 8 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. 6.

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. The chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties. Consequently, FIR No. 0240/2017, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Subhash Place and proceedings emanating therefrom are 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.

OCTOBER 08, 2024/R CRL.M.C. 7675/2024 By:DINESH CHANDRA 19:49:28