MUNAWWAR AHMED & ANR. vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 133/2024 & CRL.M.A. 551/2024
MUNAWWAR AHMED & ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Yasir Arafat and Mr. Tauseef
Ahmad, Advocates with Petitioners
in-person.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with
SI Akashdeep, PS: Jamia Nagar.
Mr. Safuddin Khan, Advocate for R-2
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)
$~17
*INTHE HIGH COURT OFDELHIAT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision:29.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 133/2024& CRL.M.A. 551/2024
MUNAWWAR AHMED & ANR…… Petitioners
Through:Mr.Yasir ArafatandMr. TauseefAhmad, AdvocateswithPetitionersin-person.
versus
THE STATE (NCTOF DELHI) & ANR…… Respondents
Through:Ms.KiranBairwa, APPfor State withSIAkashdeep, PS:Jamia Nagar.
Mr.SafuddinKhan, Advocate for R-2
with Respondent No. 2-in-person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA%J U D G M E N TANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1.Petitionunder Section482of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973(Cr.P.C.) hasbeenpreferredonbehalf of the petitionersforquashingofFIR No. 0249/2022,under Sections323/324/354/354AIPC,registeredatP.S.: Jamia Nagarandproceedingsemanatingtherefrom.Chargesheethasbeen filed under Sections323/325/354/354A/34IPC.
2.Inbrief, asper the case ofprosecution, presentFIRwasregisteredon09.06.2022oncomplaintof respondentNo.2/A(Sister-in-lawof petitionerNo.1), whoallegedthaton08.06.2022atabout09:45PM, petitioner No.1
startedassaultinghersister (wife ofpetitioner No.1). Further, injurieswere
inflictedbypetitioner No.1onhisyounger sonaswellashiselder daughter
CRL.M.C. 133/2024Page1of 3
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
and also outraged the modesty of respondent No.2 by touching her chest.
andalsooutragedthemodesty of respondent No.2 by touching her chest.
3.Learnedcounselfor thepetitionerssubmitsthatbothpetitioner No.1andrespondentNo.2are closelyrelatedandissuescroppedduetosomematrimonialdisputesbetweenpetitioner No.1andsister of respondentNo.2,
whichhave since beenresolvedbetweenthe parties. ItisurgedthatapartfromrespondentNo.2, whoissister-in-lawof petitioner No.1, wife of
petitioner No.1isalsopresenttodayinthe Courtandconfirmsthatmatter
hasbeenamicablyresolvedbetweenthe partiesandbothpetitioner No.1andhiswife have since beenresidingtogether over a periodof one year. He
further clarifiesthatpetitioner No.2 isthe sister of petitioner of No.1.
4.Respondent No.2submits thatall the disputesbetween the parties havebeenamicablysettledvide MoUdated09.10.2023andshe hasnoobjectionin case the FIR in questionisquashed.
5.LearnedAPP for the State submitsthatinviewof amicable settlementbetweentheparties, the State hasnoobjectionincase the FIRinquestionisquashed.
6.Petitionersinthepresentcase seektoinvoke the powersunder Section482of the Code of CriminalProcedure. The same istobe usedtosecure theendsof justiceor topreventthe abuse of processof Court. Inwhichcases,
the power toquashthe criminalproceedingsor the complaintor FIR maybe
usedwhenthe offender aswellasvictimhave settledtheirdispute, woulddependuponthefactsandcircumstancesof eachcaseandnogeneralizedlistor categoriescanbe prescribed. However,the Courtisrequiredtogive dueregardtothe nature and gravityof the offence andconsider the impactonthesociety.
7.Petitioners, RespondentNo.2andwife ofpetitioner No.1are present
CRL.M.C. 133/2024Page2of 3
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
in person and have been identified by SI Akashdeep, PS: Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
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 has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
inpersonandhave been identifiedbySI Akashdeep, PS: Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
I have interactedwiththe partiesandtheyconfirmthatthe matter hasbeenamicablysettledbetweenthemwithoutanythreat,pressureorcoercion.
RespondentNo.2alsostatesthatnothingremainstobe furtheradjudicateduponbetweenthe partiesandhasnoobjectionincase the FIR inquestionisquashed.
8.PetitionersandrespondentNo.2 whoarecloselyrelated,intendtoputquietustothe proceedingsandmove forwardinlife. Theincidentappearstobe onaccountof matrimonialdifferencesbetweenpetitioner No.1 andhiswife. The chancesofconvictionare bleakinviewof settlementbetweentheparties. Also, nopastinvolvementofthepetitionershasbeenbroughttothe
notice of thisCourt. The settlementshallhelptopromote harmonybetweenthe parties.
Consideringthe factsandcircumstances,since the matter hasbeenamicablysettledbetweenthe parties, nousefulpurpose shallbeservedbykeepingthe case pending. Continuationofproceedingswouldbe nothingbutanabuse of the processof Court. Consequently, FIR No. 0249/2022, underSections323/324/325/354/354A/34IPC,registeredatP.S.: Jamia Nagarandproceedings emanating therefrom standquashed.
Petitionisaccordinglydisposedof. Pendingapplications, if any, alsostand disposedof.
Acopyof thisjudgmentbe forwardedtothe learnedTrialCourtforinformation.
ANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA, J.
APRIL 29, 2024/R
CRL.M.C. 133/2024Page3of 3
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA