Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

"Matrimonial Dispute Resolved Amicably, Both FIRs Quashed": Delhi High Court Gives Verdict in High-Profile Case Involving Two Lawyers

06 September 2024 5:39 AM

By: Admin


In a recent landmark judgment, the High Court of Delhi resolved a matrimonial dispute involving Wasim Ahmad and his spouse, both lawyers, and quashed two FIRs lodged against him. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma passed the verdict on August 29, stating, "the issue in the present case stems from a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The parties have already settled the matter and have been granted Talaq."

Wasim Ahmad, represented by Mr. D.K. Srivastava, was implicated in two FIRs filed by his spouse. The first FIR alleged mental and physical harassment, cruelty, dowry demands, and threats to life. The second FIR was registered under Section 354 IPC and 10 POCSO Act, accusing Wasim Ahmad of inappropriate behavior with their daughter. Both cases were heard together as W.P.(CRL) 1967/2023 and W.P.(CRL) 1969/2023.

During the course of the proceedings, both parties reached an amicable settlement before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts. They agreed to separate through mutual consent (talaaq) and withdrew all pending litigations. A divorce certificate dated 11.05.2023 was also placed on record. In terms of child custody, both minor children will remain with the wife, and the husband will have visitation rights.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma considered the submissions and concluded that continuing the FIRs would "amount to abuse of the process of the court."

"Submissions considered," the judgment read. "Upon a careful perusal of the FIR and the pleadings before this Court, it is amply clear that the issue in the present case stems from a matrimonial dispute between the parties."

The ruling sets a precedent for the court's approach to matrimonial disputes that have been amicably resolved between the parties. It also emphasizes the importance of mediation in resolving such cases, thereby unburdening the judiciary.

The parties were present in person and were duly identified. Both expressed their relief at the conclusion of the matter and stated that they had resolved their differences voluntarily "without any fear, force or coercion," keeping in mind the "betterment and future of the children."

 Date of Decision: August 29, 2023

 xxx vs xxx

Latest Legal News