Tuesday, July 1, 2025
Latest:
delhihighcourt

AKRAM SAEED KHAN @ AKRAM AND OTHERS vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Information

$~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
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 18949/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4954/2024
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

CRL.M.C. 4954/2024 Page 1 of 3