- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 24 May 2022
- Bench
- Talwant Singh
- Case no.
- CRL.M.C. 175/2022
Judgment
TALWANT SINGH, J MAY 24, 2022/nk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on 24.05.2022 + DR. AAMIR KHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shahid Ali, Mohd. Sadiq, Mr. Anwar Khalil & Mr. Sameer, Advs. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Talwant Singh, J.: 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR No. 438/2021 under Sections 376/328 IPC registered at PS Ranjit Nagar, Central Delhi. 2. Notice was issued. Status report has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he is an MBBS doctor and respondent no.2 is a practising lawyer. There was a love affair between two of them for the last more than 2 years and during this period the marriage proposal was also conveyed to the family of respondent no.2 by the family of petitioner and the same was also accepted by parents of respondent no.2. In the first week of September, 2020, meeting took place between the parents of both the sides and it was agreed that the marriage would be solemnized after a period of 2 years on completion of DCH course of the petitioner. Certain differences arose between the parties on 11.09.2021 and thereafter respondent no.2 filed the present FIR against the petitioner on 28.11.2021 on the allegation that the petitioner had made physical relations with respondent no.2 on the promise of marriage on number of occasions and later on he stopped talking to her and the mother of the petitioner was insisting that the petitioner should marry a bride from the same profession. A copy of the FIR has been enclosed with the petition, wherein these allegations have been made. 4.1 It is further submitted that on 14.12.2021, the petitioner and respondent no.2 got married by performing Nikah as per Muslim Rites and Ceremonies and the marriage was duly registered with the office of Marriage Registrar, Ghaziabad, UP. On the same day, the petitioner was arrested despite objections from respondent no.2. He was ultimately bailed out vide order dated 19.12.2021 passed by learned ASJ but the actual release took place on 21.12.2021. When the petitioner went to his hospital, where he was employed as a junior resident doctor, to join his services, the petitioner was informed by the department that he has been terminated as he was in judicial custody continuously for 7 days. It has been submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2 was more of a private and civil nature, the same has already been amicably settled and both the parties have voluntarily married and have now been living together as husband and wife peacefully and respondent no.2 does not wish to pursue any proceedings, hence it has been prayed that the FIR be quashed. 4.2 The petitioner has placed on record compromise deed dated 04.04.2022 along with photograph of the marriage and reception as well as photograph of the marriage card. The following has been stated in the compromise Deed:- 1. That both the parties have already married on 14/12/2021 as per Islamic rites and customs and have also got their marriage register with the marriage Registrar office Ghaziabad. 2. That both the parties have been living together as husband and wife under the same roof at D-131, 2nd Floor Gali No. 6, CR Road, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. 3. That it has been undertaken by the Second party that he will keep the First party happy and shall provide all necessities of life and shall bear all expanses being and likely to be incurred in day-to-day affairs and maintenance of both the parties. 4. That the Second Party shall pay for the house rent of the aforesaid accommodation and shall continue to pay in future also. 5. That the Second Party shall pay an amount Rs. 25,000/- to the First Party per month for enabling her to meet day to day expanses of their dwelling unit. 6. That the Second shall continue to pay for a
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.