- (1.)THIS is a very unusual case. The petitioner was originally seeking bail [bail Appln 4746/2006] in respect of FIR No. 817 dated 12. 12. 2006 registered at police station Preet Vihar under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner's bail application filed before the sessions court had been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 20. 12. 2006. Consequently, an application for bail [bail Appln 4746/2006] had been filed before this court. During the pendency of the said bail application, in which this court had granted interim bail to the petitioner, the complainant and the petitioner have arrived at a settlement which has been reduced to writing in the form of a compromise deed dated 01. 09. 2007. By virtue of the said deed, the petitioner and the complainant have decided to settle all their disputes and cases which include the present case as well as cases arising out of FIR No. 637/2006 u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC and FIR No. 79/2007 u/s 506/34 and the maintenance case u/s 125 Crpc pending before the Metropolitan magistrate, all of which have been initiated by the complainant, and the case arising out of FIR No. 91/2007 at P. S. Tilak Marg u/s 506/34, which has been registered at the instance of the petitioner and in which the complainant herein, Aqil Ansari, Altamash and others are accused. The question of custody of the minor daughter [sara @ Ushna], aged about 2 years, born out of the wedlock of petitioner and the complainant has also been settled. Because of this settlement/compromise between the petitioner and the complainant as also on merits, this application has been filed under section 482 Crpc for quashing of FIR No. 817/2006 u/s 376 registered at P. S. Preet Vihar.
(2.)THE case is unusual, not because of the circumstances narrated above but, because of the facts which led to the registration of the FIR in question. The complainant, Aisha Anjum, filed a written complaint at the above-mentioned police station on 12. 12. 2006. In her written complaint, she stated that her marriage was solemnised with the petitioner on 2. 4. 2004 in accordance with Muslim rites. She further stated that out of this marital relationship a daughter was born to her. She alleged that the petitioner and his family members threw her out of the house on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands for which she had already complained to the crime against women cell. It was then alleged that the petitioner had filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights and on 13. 4. 2006, from the court itself, she went with her husband to their matrimonial home. It is further alleged in the written complaint that after her return to her matrimonial home her husband committed rape on her upto 19. 4. 2006 because she had later come to learn that he had already given her talaq earlier and that he had lied in court that she was still his wife and on this misrepresentation he had taken her home. She further submitted that the petitioner's family members also knew about the talaq but they participated in the fraud committed against her. It is further alleged that on 19. 4. 2006 a second nikah was performed which came to light only when she obtained a duplicate copy of the nikahnama. She alleged that the petitioner had unlawful relations with her during that time as he was not her husband then. She further stated that had she known, at that point of time, that he was not her husband and that he had already given her talaq, she would never have agreed t. o have conjugal relations with him. She alleged that her consent was taken by playing a fraud upon her and that the petitioner, in the guise of being her lawful husband, had unlawful relations with her by deceitful means. She reiterated that had she known of the truth at that point of time she would never have given her consent. She therefore requested that legal action against the petitioner and other accused persons be taken under sections 376/34 IPC.
(3.)IT is an admitted position that the complainant and the petitioner got married on 2. 4. 2004 and that they lived together till 8. 4. 2005. On that date, according to the complainant, she was thrown out of the house on account of non- fulfillment of dowry demands. But, according to the petitioner, the complainant left their house without informing him and of her own will. On 22. 10. 2005, the complainant gave birth to a baby girl (the said Sara @ Ushna, who is now about 2 years old ). It is alleged by the petitioner that towards the end of October 2005, his brother-in-law and his sister attempted to arrange for the return of the complainant to her matrimonial home. But, this was in vain. It is further alleged by the petitioner that upon hearing of the failure of this mission, he became very sad and extremely angry and in this mental condition, in the presence of his brother-in-law and another man, he uttered the words giving talaq to his wife (the complainant) approximately three times or even more. According to the petitioner, he forgot about this incident and continued to make efforts for the return of his wife. Admittedly, the factum of the purported talaq was not communicated to the complainant.