Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sanjay Chauhan & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3141 Del

Citation : 2009 Latest Caselaw 3141 Del
Judgement Date : 12 August, 2009

Delhi High Court
Sanjay Chauhan & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 12 August, 2009
Author: Gita Mittal
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

                    + Crl.M.C.No. 2744/2009

                                Date of decision: 12th August, 2009

     Sanjay Chauhan & Ors.                      ... Petitioner
           through: Mr. Nagender Deswal and Mr. Paramjeet Singh,
                   Adv. with petitioners in person

                              VERSUS

     State & Anr.                          ....Respondents
            through: Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP for the state with SI V.P.
                    Kochar
                    Ms. Rina Singh, Adv. for the respondent no. 2 with
                     respondent no. 2 in person

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL

        1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
             the Judgment?
        2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)

1.    Notice.

      Mr. U.L.Watwani accepts notice for the respondent no. 1.

2.    The petitioners are also present in person.        The parties are

identified by SI V.P. Kochar, the investigating officer in the case.

3.    By this petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the

proceedings arising out of FIR No. 847/2007 registered by the police

station Dabri u/s 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
                                  -2-

4.   It is stated that a marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites

and ceremonies between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 on

6th May, 2007 at Delhi. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of

the petitioner no. 1 while petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are his brothers. On

account of differences between the petitioners and the respondent no.

2, she started living separately from them since 20th July, 2007.      A

complaint was also lodged by the respondent no.2 which was

registered as FIR No. 847/07 by the police station Dabri Colony u/s

498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, a

charge sheet stands filed and the case is stated to be pending in the

court of Ms. Rekha, MM, Delhi.

5.   It is stated by the petitioners on the one hand and the

respondent no. 2 on the other that during the pendency of the case on

account of the intervention of relatives and friends, an amicable

settlement has resulted.    The same was reduced to writing on 30th

May, 2009 copy whereof has been filed on record. The parties have

seen the copy of the settlement in court and have confirmed that the

same was entered into by them.

6.   It is submitted by the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 that

the terms of the settlement have already been effectuated.          It is

stated by the parties that in terms of the settlement, the petitioner no.
                                   -3-

1 had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- in full and final

settlement of all claims of stridhan, maintenance and permanent

alimony to the respondent no. 2.           Articles of stridhan of the

respondent no. 2 are also stated to have been returned to her.

7.   So far as the payment of the amount is concerned, the same was

payable by four instalments.     Two of the instalments are stated to

have been paid in the proceedings u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act

and one instalment stands paid before the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate at the time of withdrawl of the petition under the Protection

of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the petitioner no. 1 to the

respondent no. 2.

8.   The fourth instalment of Rs.12,500/- has been paid in cash by the

petitioners to the respondent no. 2 in court. The respondent no. 2 has

stated that having received the full amount of Rs.50,000/- she has no

other or further claims upon the petitioners or their relatives.

9.   It is further stated by the parties that the marriage between the

petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 stands dissolved by a decree

of divorce by mutual consent dated 30th July, 2009. The petitioners

have contended that in view thereof, they have no other or further

claim of any kind against the respondent no. 2 or any of her relatives.
                                    -4-

10.   The petitioners and the respondent no. 2 have jointly prayed that

in view of the settlement arrived at and bearing in mind that the

petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are young persons and wish to

start life afresh, the proceedings arising out of the complaint which

was lodged by the respondent no. 2 resulting in registration of FIR be

quashed.

11.   I have considered the prayers made by the parties.         In the

aforenoticed facts it remains no manner of doubt that the proceedings

were initiated on a complaint lodged by the respondent no. 2 arising

out of matrimonial disputes and differences. The disputes were of a

private nature. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties

have arrived at a mutual settlement and have agreed to settle all their

disputes and difference finally.    Respondent no. 2 has received an

amount towards her claims of maintenance and alimony and the

relationship between the petitioners on the one hand and the

respondent no. 2 stand snapped by the decree of divorce.            The

request of the petitioners that they be permitted therefore to get on in

life without the interdiction of the criminal prosecution deserves to be

accepted.   The same would be in the interest of justice as well as

societal interest having regard to the young ages of the petitioner no.

1 and the respondent no. 2.
                                  -5-

12.   In this view of the matter, it is directed that all proceedings

arising out of the FIR No. 847/2007 registered by the police station

Dabri u/s 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code shall stand quashed.

      This petition is allowed in the above terms.

      Dasti to parties.



August 12, 2009                                      Gita Mittal, J.

kr

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter