Isram Uddin & Ors. v. State & Anr.

1. This is a petition u/S 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.205/2011, u/S 498A/406/34 IPC registered by P.S. Sangam Vihar.

2. The ground for quashing of the aforesaid FIR is that the complainant had concealed the material fact of having initially arrived at a settlement and thereafter backing out.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 20.8.2009, wherein the statement of the petitioner no.1 was recorded. In the said statement, the petitioner no.1 had stated that he has withdrawn the case filed by him against the complainant from the Mahila Court and that he has given 'Talak' to the complainant according to Islamic rituals.

4. It has also been stated that an amount of ~1 lac was fixed towards full and final settlement of the entire claim of the ' -·;-! ---" --~· 2011:DHC:8930 -~ ·:2complainant. However, out of the said amount, only ~25,000/­ was received by her in cash on 20.8.2009 and thereafter, on 30.10.2009 when the matter was adjourned for recording of the compromise, she had backed out.

5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent thereto, the complainant had filed a complaint u/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 9.11.2010 on the basis of which the present FIR was registered.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that these vital facts have been concealed in the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record. No doubt prima facie, the complaint which is purported to have been filed by the complainant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which FIR has been registered does not mention the previous background regarding the compromise having been arrived at between the present petitioners and the respondent /complainant, at the initial stage. It is also not disputed that the complainant had received a part payment of ~ 25,000/- on account of the said compromise. However, from the order dated --;- ---------'-< !,--- 20.8.2009, it is evident that technically some talks for compromise were initiated, but no categorical statement was made by the complainant nor any assurance was given to the Court that she would compound the offence, more so, she refused to accept the balance amount of {75,000/-. Under these circumstances, I feel that quashing of the aforesaid FIR will be against the complainant and improper.

8. So far as the question of concealment of vital facts is concerned, the petitioners can cross examine the witness when the evidence is recorded before the Trial Court.

9. It has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604 that the powers of quashing the FIR or the complaint should be exercised very sparingly. The Apex Court has also laid down seven illustrative contingencies in which such powers shall be exercised. None of these contingency is available in the instant case.

10. I am, prima facie of the view that the FIR cannot be quashed without the consent of the complainant.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition of the petitioners is dismissed with a cost of {5,000/-. AUGUST 08,2011/RN ~ ~ ~" V. K. SHALI,J '!..~ ·--------!. ~---------'-<