CRL.M.C./4446/2016 of NAAZ HASMI Vs STATE & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 4446/2016

NAAZ HASMI

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr.D.K.Pandey, Advocate with thepetitioner in person.

versus

STATE & ANR...... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for Statewith SI Rakesh Rana, P.S. BharatNagar, Delhi.R-2/complainant in person.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R R%28.11.2016

Crl.M.A.No.18552/2016 (Exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.

-Crl.M.A.No.18570/2016 (delay in refiling)

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of thepetitioner seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the present petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing thepresent petition is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 4446/2016

This is petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of thepetitioners seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.169/2013, under Sections406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar, Delhi and allproceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage betweenthe petitioner and the respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized on19.02.2010 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of thesaid wed lock, one male child Tayab Hashmi was born on 20.06.2015. Hefurther submits that due to some misunderstanding arisen between theparties, the respondent No.2 got registered an FIR bearing No.169/2013,under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station Bharat Nagar, Delhi.Subsequently, the close friends and near relatives intervened and the matterwas amicably settled/compromised between the parties. Counsel furthersubmits that thereafter the respondent No.2 made statement before the Courtof Ms.Bimla Kumari, Judge (North-West), Family Court, Delhi on04.09.2015 in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that she does not wantto proceed further with the case as she has settled the matter with thepetitioner and they are residing together as husband and wife. Counsel forthe petitioner further submits that since the matter has been amicablysettled/compromised between the parties and that the petitioner andrespondent No.2 are now living together as husband and wife peacefully andshe has no claim or grievance left against the petitioner, hence no purposewould be served to continue with the criminal case/FIR against thepetitioner. Hence, the FIR in question and all proceedings arising

therefrom may be quashed.

The respondent No.2/complainant is present in Court today and hasbeen identified by the Investigating Officer, SI Rakesh Rana, P.S. BharatNagar, Delhi. The respondent No.2/complainant admits that she hasamicably settled/compromised the matter with the petitioner and that she isnowpeacefullylivingwiththepetitioner.Shesubmitsthatthemisunderstanding has been sorted out and she is left with no claim orgrievance of any nature against the petitioner. She further submits that shehas got no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

Looking into the facts and circumstances, since the matter has beenamicably settled/compromised between the parties and the fact that thepetitioner and respondent No.2/complainant are now residing together ashusband and wife along with their child peacefully and happily, in my view,no purpose would be served in continuing with criminal proceedings againstthe petitioner. Consequently, FIR bearing No.169/2013, under Sections406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar, Delhi and allproceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

I.S.MEHTA, J

NOVEMBER 28, 2016‘dc’