SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Md Urman vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 22 February, 2024

Posted on 02/27/2024 by MyNation Leave a comment

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Delhi High Court – Orders

Md Urman vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 22 February, 2024

$~57

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1464/2024
MD URMAN ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saud Ahmad, Adv.

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
with SI Kiran Yadav PS IP Estate
Mr. Rafiq Ahmed, Adv. for R2

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER

% 22.02.2024

CRL.M.A. 5768/2024 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1464/2024

3. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking
quashing of FIR No.167/2021 under Sections 376B/509/451 IPC registered
at Police Station I.P. Estate and all consequential proceedings emanating
therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

4. Issue notice. The learned APP for the State accepts notice. He submits
that since the FIR is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute and the parties
have arrived at a settlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/02/2024 at 21:59:43
question is quashed.

5. The petitioner (husband), as well as, respondent no. 2 (wife) are
present in the Court and they have been identified by their respective
counsel and by the Investigating Officer SI Kiran Yadav PS IP Estate.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner
and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 13.09.2019 according to Muslim
Rites and Ceremonies.

7. On account of temperamental issues certain disputes arose between
the parties and they started living separately w.e.f. 14.09.2019. The dispute
between the parties also led to the registration of present FIR.

8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties arrived at a
settlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form of Settlement
dated 08.01.2024, which is annexed as Annexure 2 to the present petition.

9. It has been mentioned in the settlement that the parties have arrived at
settlement with the assistance of their respective families and friends. It is
also recorded in the settlement that the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2
are now residing together.

10. The respondent no.2, on a query put by the Court, states that she has
no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

11. In the present case offence under Section 376B IPC was also
subsequently invoked. A coordinate bench of this court in ‘Rifakat Ali
Ors Vs. State Anr.’ [CRL.M.C. No. 599/2021, decided on 26.02.2021]
after referring to three decisions of the Supreme Court, has taken a view that
an offence under Section 377 IPC, is though a heinous offence, but where
such an offence is invoked in a matrimonial dispute and where the parties
have decided to part ways and move ahead in their lives without acrimony

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/02/2024 at 21:59:43
against each other, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised even
for an offence under Section 377 IPC on the ground that the dispute is
private in nature. The material part of the said decision reads as under:-

“….10. A perusal of the three judgments which shows that the
Supreme Court has consistently held that the power under
Section 482 CrPC should not be used for quashing heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity etc. since these offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact in society. An offence under Section
377 IPC is a heinous offence and points to the mental depravity
of the accused and hence ought not to be quashed by the High
Court on the basis of compromise by exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC.

11. The present case arises out of matrimonial dispute and the
allegation has been made by the wife against the husband. The
parties have decided to part ways and get ahead in their lives
without having any acrimony against each other. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to exercise
its powers under Section 482 CrPC even for an offence under
Section 377 IPC on the ground that the dispute is private in
nature.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
on orders of this Court in CRL.M.C.830/2019 titled as Dinesh
Kumar Ors. v. State Anr., CRL.M.C.1613/2019 titled as
Anmol Katyal Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Anr., CRL.M.C.
5216/2018 titled as Gajender Singh Ors. v. State (NCT of
Delhi) Ors. and CRL.M.C. 4117/2018 titled as Joginder
Singh Bote Ors. v. NCT of Delhi Anr. In all these cases
wife has levelled allegation of the husband committing an
offence under Section 377 IPC. This Court has exercised its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and has quashed the FIRs
on the basis of the compromise entered into between the
husband and wife.