Quashed

Mohd Zakir & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Aug 2011CRL.M.C./2531/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioners to delete a wrongly named petitioner and quashed an FIR under Sections 323/354 IPC. Prior to quashing, the court ordered petitioner no.2 to deposit Rs 10,000 as cost for having outraged the complainant's modesty before she obtained a divorce.

What did the court decide?

Deposit of Rs 10,000 with Delhi High Court Legal Aid and Advise Committee within one week, quashing of FIR No. 151/2011 and consequent investigation.

Mohd Zakir & Ors. Vs State & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Signing Date:22.08.2024 16:42:42 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶3

¶4

The learned APP, who is present in response to the advance copy having been served, has very fairly stated that in the FIR the name of Mohd. Zakir has been wrongly written as it ought to have been written as Mohd. Shakir i.e. petitioner no.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the statement made by the 10 has sought permission to delete the name of the petitioner no.l/ Mohd. Zakir from the array of the petitioners. The prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the present petition is filed only on behalf of the three petitioners, namely, Mohd. Shakir, Razia and Naseem. Amended memo of parties be filed within a day.

¶5

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have struck a compromise with the respondent no. 2/complainant Ms. Rubian Parveen @ Ruby so far as the dispute is concerned. It has been also stated that the respondent no. 2/Ms. Rubian Parveen @ Ruby has obtained a divorce from petitioner no.l/Mohd. Zakir, and therefore, she is not interested in pursuing the matter.

¶6

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record.

¶7

The parties are present in Court and are duly identified by their respective counsel.

¶8

Having regard to tine facts of tlie case, the respondent no. 27l^s. Rubian Parveen @ Ruby who is the complainant has obtained a divorce from her husband/i^ohd. Zakir to whom the petitioner no. 2 to 4 are related^ No useful purpose would be served by keeping the FIR and the consequent investigation pending. However, before quashing the FIR and the consequent investigation, the petitioner no. 2 necessarily deserves to be visited with some cost especially in the light of the fact that he has outraged the modesty of his erstwhile sister-in-law.

¶9

¶10

The petitioner no.2 shall deposit a sum of ?10,000/with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid and Advise Committee within one week from today. On deposit of the said cost, the FIR No. 151/2011 under Section 323/354 IPC registered by P.S. Jafrabad, Delhi and the consequent investigation stands quashed. The original receipt of the deposit of cost shall be handed over to the 10, whereupon he shall stop the proceedings further and file a cancellation report. A copy of the deposit of cost be also placed on the judicial record. The petition is disposed of.

¶11

Both the parties bear their own cost.

¶12

V.K. SHALI,J

¶13

AUGUST 04, 2011/KP

Mohd Zakir & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Zakir & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Sharma & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi

Syed Mohd. Aslam Vs Nikhat Ara & Anr.

Deepika Lal Vs Satinder Gupta

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Lalita Yadav & Ors.

Gopal Halwai Vs Sanjay Verma & Anr.

Shambhu Singh Vs State