Mohd Zakir & Ors v. State & Anr

1. This is an application seel<ing exemption from filing the certified copies.

2. Subject to the deficiency being rectified within a period of 10 weeks from today, the application is allowed. Crl. M. A. No. 9054/2011

3. This is an application for seeking the condonation of 32 days delay in refiling the petition.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 32 days in refiling is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CH. M. C. No. 2531/2011

5. This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 151/2011 under Section 323/354 IPG registered by P.S. Jafrabad, Delhi. 2011:DHC:11578

6. The learned APP, who is present in response to the advance copy having been served, has very fairly stated that in the FIR the name of Mohd. Zakir has been wrongly written as it ought to have been written as Mohd. Shakir i.e. petitioner no.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the statement made by the 10 has sought permission to delete the name of the petitioner no.l/ Mohd. Zakir from the array of the petitioners. The prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the present petition is filed only on behalf of the three petitioners, namely, Mohd. Shakir, Razia and Naseem. Amended memo of parties be filed within a day.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have struck a compromise with the respondent no. 2/complainant Ms. Rubian Parveen @ Ruby so far as the dispute is concerned. It has been also stated that the respondent no. 2/Ms. Rubian Parveen @ Ruby has obtained a divorce from petitioner no.l/Mohd. Zakir, and therefore, she is not interested in pursuing the matter.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record.

9. The parties are present in Court and are duly identified by their respective counsel. V

10. Having regard to tine facts of tlie case, the respondent no. 27l^s. Rubian Parveen @ Ruby who is the complainant has obtained a divorce from her husband/i^ohd. Zakir to whom the petitioner no. 2 to 4 are related^ No useful purpose would be served by keeping the FIR and the consequent investigation pending. However, before quashing the FIR and the consequent investigation, the petitioner no. 2 necessarily deserves to be visited with some cost especially in the light of the fact that he has outraged the modesty of his erstwhile sister-in-law.

11. The petitioner no.2 shall deposit a sum of ?10,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid and Advise Committee within one week from today. On deposit of the said cost, the FIR NO. 151/2011 under Section 323/354 IPC registered by P.S. Jafrabad, Delhi and the consequent investigation stands quashed. The original receipt of the deposit of cost shall be handed over to the 10, whereupon he shall stop the proceedings further and file a cancellation report. A copy of the deposit of cost be also placed on the judicial record. The petition is disposed of.

12. Both the parties bear their own cost. V.K. SHALI,J AUGUST 04, 2011