Crl.MC 1679/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. No. 1679/2010 Decided on 16.07.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : IMAMUDDIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. F.A.Banisrael, Advocates along with Petitioners No.1, 2, 3 & 6 in person Petitioner No.7 in person. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Santosh Kohli, APP for State along with ASI Joginder Singh, PS SP.Badli. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. Pursuant to the order dated 17.5.2010, an additional affidavit of petitioner No.7, sworn on 29.5.2010, is placed on the record. The petitioner No.7 is present in the court and duly identified by the IO. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying inter alia for quashing of the FIR No.247/2006 and proceedings arising therefrom, lodged by the petitioner No.7 against her Crl.MC 1679/2010 Page 2 of 3 husband, the petitioners No.1, and her in-laws, petitioners No.2 to 6, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered with PS Samaipur Badli. 3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.7 got married in the year 2002 as per the muslim rites and customs and that no child was born from out of the wedlock. It is further stated that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.7 were not compatible with each other and started to reside separately. In the year 2005, the petitioner No.7 made a complaint against the petitioners No.1 to 6 in the CAW Cell, North-West District. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR was got registered at PS Samaipur Badli. However, in the interregnum, due to the intervention of family members on both sides, the parties have arrived at an amicable compromise, as recorded in the Compromise Deed dated 15.5.2006 (Pages 14 to 16). It is further stated that in terms of the compromise, the petitioner No.7 has received a sum of Rs.50,000/- in full and final settlement of all her claims against the petitioners No.1 to 6 and that the petitioner No.1 has divorced the petitioner No.7 on 15.5.2006. It is further stated that after the aforesaid compromise was arrived at between both the parties, the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.7 have gone their respective ways and have re-married and in these circumstances, the aforesaid FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed. 4. The parties are present in the court and confirm that the averments made in the present petition are correct. Learned APP for the State also states that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Crl.MC 1679/2010 Page 3 of 3 5. The Court has perused the Compromise Deed dated 15.05.2006. The parties, who are present in Court, confirm that they have arrived at the aforesaid compromise of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters. There appears no legal impediment in accepting the compromise arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, the Compromise Deed dated 15.05.2006 is taken on the record. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions thereof. The present petition is allowed. FIR No.247/2006 and all the proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed. 6. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. (HIMA KOHLI) JULY 16, 2010 JUDGE mk