Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 812 (DEL)

MOHD. TASLEEM v. STATE OF DELHI

2008-08-25

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

body2008
ORDER Crl. M.A, No. 10214/2008 Exemption sought is granted subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. Crl. M.C. No. 2785/2008 1. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Sanjay Lao enters appearance for respondent No.1 and Mr. D.L. Dhingra enters appearance for respondent No.2. The accept notice and waive service. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No.1 Mohd. Tasleem and the complainant, Smt. Rafat Begum who is also arrayed as respondent No.2 have settled their dispute. He further states that the complainant, Smt. Rafat Begum who is present in Court does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of her complaint which was then recorded as FIR No. 205/1994 under Sections 406/498-A/34, IPC, registered at Police Station Lahori Gate. He states that before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate in M.P. No. 378/3/2003, under Section 125, Cr.P.C, on 26.8.2007, both the parties had resolved their differences on full and final payment of Rs. 4lakh along with future maintenance of a child born out of the wedlock, Master Burhan at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month which is to be paid by the first petitioner. He states that out of this amount of Rs. 4 lakh, Rs. 3lakh already stand paid to the complainant/respondent No.2 and a demand draft bearing No. 592547 dated 22.8.2008 drawn on the Federal Bank Limited for Rs. 1lakh has been handed over today, in Court, to the complainant. It has also been agreed between the parties that the custody of the minor child will remain with the complainant/ respondent No.2 and that the complainant shall not be compelled to live with the first petitioner at her matrimonial, home. He further states that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the fact that it is a matter pertaining to a matrimonial dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings when the parties have amicably settled their disputes. Learned Counsel for the State also agrees with the same. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. D.L. Dhingra, as also the Counsel for the petitioners, identify Ms. Rafat Begum. Let her statement be recorded. 3. Statements of Ms. Rafat Begum, the complainant who is arrayed as respondent No.2 herein as also Mohd. Tasleem who is petitioner No.1 have been recorded. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. D.L. Dhingra, as also the Counsel for the petitioners, identify Ms. Rafat Begum. Let her statement be recorded. 3. Statements of Ms. Rafat Begum, the complainant who is arrayed as respondent No.2 herein as also Mohd. Tasleem who is petitioner No.1 have been recorded. 4. In view of what has been stated by learned Counsel for the parties and also the statement of Ms. Rafat Begum, it would be proper that the matter is put to rest finally as no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the trial in which Ms. Rafat Begum is not supporting her case. 5. Accordingly, FIR No. 205/1994 under Sections 406/ 498-A/34, IPC, registered at Police Station Lahori Gate and all the proceedings emanating therefrom against all the accused persons are hereby quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Dasti. Petition disposed of.