Allowed

Mohd Vasim & Ors. v. the State & Anr.

Delhi HC3 Feb 2016W.P.(CRL)/350/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC in a matrimonial dispute. The court quashed the proceedings after parties deposited Rs. 1.5 lakhs, executed a divorce deed, and settled the dispute amicably via a compromise deed.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 564/2015 and proceedings arising therefrom are set aside and quashed; petitioners directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- each to the complainant.

Mohd Vasim & Ors. Vs the State & Anr. — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

#32

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

Date of decision: 3^rd February, 2016

¶4

+ W.P.(CRL) 350/2016

¶5

MOHD VASIM & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. S.R. Gupta, Advocate along with petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Avi Singh, ASC (Crl.) with Ms. Megha Bahl, Advocate SI Sanjay Rana, P.S. Mahendra Park Mr.S.R. Gupta, Adv. for the complainant along with complainant/R-2

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

¶10

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

¶11

The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 564/2015 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Mahendra Park, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.

¶12

The facts in brief are that the petitioner no. 1 (husband) and respondent

¶13

No.2/complainant (wife) were married to each other according to Muslim rites and customs on 31^st October, 2012. Owing to temperamental and ideological differences between the parties to the marriage, they started living separately

¶14

W.P.(CRL) 350/2016 Page 1 of 4

¶15

since June, 2015. One girl child namely Aayesha @ Ikra has been born out of the said wedlock and the custody of the child is with respondent no. 2/complainant (wife). On a complaint instituted by respondent no.2 (wife), the subject FIR was registered against the petitioner no. 1 (husband) and his family members.

¶16

Counsel for the parties state that with the intervention of respectable persons of the society, family members and common friends, the parties have amicably settled their outstanding matrimonial dispute which culminated into a Compromise Deed dated 14^th December, 2015. The salient terms and conditions of the afore-stated settlement are as follows:-

¶17

“1. That the first party has settled her entire claim at Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand) from the second party and second party has agreed to give the said amount to the first party.

¶18

That the first party is agreed to take divorce from her husband and on 14.122015, she has taken divorce from her husband. Apart from the said amount, the first party shall not claim anything in future from the second party. The first part has also received her stridhan and now nothing remains with the second party.

¶19

That the first party has received her full and final settlement of Rs. 1.50 lac in cash from the second party and the first party has agreed to cooperate the second party to get the aforesaid FIR quashed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi within 10 days from today.

¶20

That the custody of the said minor daughter will remain with the first party and the second party will not claim in future about the same.

¶21

That the first party shall not file any case for maintenance, dowry, properties etc. against the second party and his family members before any court of law and police station and

¶22

W.P.(CRL) 350/2016 Page 2 of 4

¶23

similarly, the second party shall also not file any case, petition etc. against the first party in future before any court of law and police station.”

¶24

In a nutshell, it has been agreed by and between the parties to the union

¶25

that respondent no. 2 (wife) shall be paid a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs towards all her claims against the petitioners.

¶26

Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the said settlement, the entire sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs has been paid to the respondent no. 2/complainant (wife). The latter acknowledges receipt thereof.

¶27

Counsel for the parties also state that pursuant to the settlement arrived at

¶28

between the parties to the union, a Talaknama in accordance with Muslim Personal Law has already been executed between the parties on 14^th December, 2015.

¶29

Ms. Arshi, the respondent No.2/complainant (wife), who is present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer i.e. SI Sanjay Rana, Police Station- Mahendra Park, Delhi, states that in pursuance to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, she is no longer keen to proceed with

¶30

the subject FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶31

Since the dispute between the parties which arose out of a matrimonial discord between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and resulted in the registration of the subject FIR, has been settled amicably by way of a

¶32

W.P.(CRL) 350/2016 Page 3 of 4

¶33

Compromise Deed dated 14^th December, 2015 without any undue influence, pressure or coercion, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.

¶34

Resultantly, the FIR No. 564/2015 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Mahendra Park, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby set aside and quashed qua all the petitioners subject to all the petitioners paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the complainant within a period of two weeks from today. A copy of the receipt thereof shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.

¶35

With the above said directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Copy of this order be given dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶37

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

¶38

FEBRUARY 03, 2016 sd

¶39

W.P.(CRL) 350/2016 Page 4 of 4

Mohd Vasim & Ors. v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Vasim & Ors. v. the 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

Gagandeep Sharma Vs the State ( Govt of NCT Delhi) & Ors.

Ajay Bhatia & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Munshi Ram Vs State ( NCT of Delhi)

Damodar Singh & Ors. Vs the State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Abhimanyu @ Shyam Vs State

Pooja Sharma Vs State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Manish Jain Vs Commissioner of Police Delhi & Ors.

Vishal @ Nanu & Ors. Vs State ( NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Damodar Singh & Ors. Vs the State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Romesh Sahu @ Romesh Vishwanath Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Amit Kumar & Ors. Vs the State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Pushpender Vs State

Ravinder Vs State

Rakesh @ Commandoo Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.