CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 06 J&K CK 0004

Mohd. Mushtaq vs UT Of J&K And Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 5 June 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajnesh Oswal, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Case (M) No. 661 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 363 words

Rajnesh Oswal, J

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing FIR No. 26/2020 dated 26.11.2020 registered by respondent No. 2 at the instance of respondent No. 3 for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC on the ground that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 was dissolved by decree of court and the petitioner had paid permanent alimony of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the respondent No. 3.

2.

Notice was issued to respondent No. 3, which was duly received by her, but she did not appear before this Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the parties have settled the controversy, continuance of proceedings shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law. He has also produced a copy of order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the court of learned Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate) Udhampur, whereby the petition filed by the respondent No. 3 for grant of maintenance has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate for non-prosecution. The same is taken on record.

4.

Heard and perused the record.

5.

A perusal of the record reveals that a mutual divorce deed dated 09.07.2022 was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 3, wherein it has been stated that they will withdraw all the cases pending between the parties. Thereafter, the court of learned Munsiff (JMIC) Udhampur vide order dated 11.07.2022 disposed of the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.3 in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC after recording the statement of the parties and the respondent No. 3 has also admitted that she has received the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the petitioner. It appears that because of settlement between the petitioner and the respondent No.3, she has not appeared to object this petition.

6.

In such view of the matter, the continuance of the investigation in the impugned FIR, shall be an exercise in futility.

7.

In view of this, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 26/2020 dated 26.11.2020 registered by respondent No. 2 at the instance of respondent No. 3 for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC is quashed.

8.

Disposed of.