Delhi High Court
Amit Jain & Ors. vs State on 22 July, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.C. No. 2320/2010 & Crl.M.A.No.12538/2010
Decided on 22.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
AMIT JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajnish Kumar Advocate along with
Petitioners No.1 to 5 in person
Petitioner No.6 in person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs. S. Kohli, APP for State
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482
Cr.P.C. readwith Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying inter alia for
quashing of FIR No.268/2008 and the proceedings arising therefrom, lodged
by the petitioner No.6 against her husband, the petitioner No.1, her two
brothers-in-law, petitioners No.2 & 3, petitioner No.4, wife of petitioner No.2
and petitioner No.5, her mother-in-law, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC
registered with PS Najafgarh.
2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of petitioner No.1
and petitioner No.6 got solemnized on 23.1.2007, as per the hindu rites and
customs and that there is no child born from out of the wedlock. Thereafter,
some disputes arose between the parties, who started living separately. The
petitioner No.6 lodged the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners No. 1 to 5 on
3.5.2008. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been
filed, which is stated to be pending before the Court of the learned MM,
Dwarka. Simultaneously, the petitioner No.6 also filed a complaint against
the petitioners No.1 to 5 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a separate petition
was filed by her under the Domestic Violence Act. Petitioner No.1 was
granted regular bail by the court of the learned MM, whereas other
petitioners No.2 to 5 were granted anticipatory bail by the learned ASJ.
3. When petitioner No.6 filed an appeal against the order of the
learned ASJ, and sought cancellation of the regular bail granted to petitioner
No.1, with the efforts made by the learned ASJ, the parties arrived at a
settlement. The settlement was duly recorded in the order dated 4.3.2009
passed by the learned ASJ. In terms of the settlement, the petitioners No.1
to 5 agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.4,57,500/- to the petitioner No.6, in
installments. The parties also agreed that they would apply for a divorce by
mutual consent and withdraw all the criminal proceedings initiated by the
petitioner No.6 against the petitioners No.1 to 5. Pursuant thereto, both the
parties filed a joint application for grant of divorce by mutual consent, which
was granted by the concerned court vide order dated 15.4.2010. Out of the
sum of Rs.4,75,500/-, a sum of Rs.3,28,750/- is stated to have been paid to
the petitioner No.6, who is present in the court and confirms having received
the aforesaid amount. The remaining amount of Rs.1,28,750/- offered
today by way of a pay order bearing No.016807 drawn on Central Bank of
India, Narayana in favour of petitioner No.6 is handed over by the counsel
for petitioners No.1 to 5 to her.
4. The petitioner No.6 states that the aforesaid settlement has
been arrived at with the petitioners No.1 to 5 of her own free will and
volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters and
having received the entire agreed amount, nothing further is due and
payable by petitioners No.1 to 5 and that now she has no objection to the
FIR being quashed. It is further confirmed by her that the other proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and those initiated by her under the Domestic
Violence Act have also been withdrawn by her, in terms of the settlement.
Learned APP for the State also states that in view of the settlement arrived
at between the parties, she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
5. There appears no legal impediment in accepting the settlement,
which appears to have been arrived at between the parties voluntarily and
without any pressure. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and
conditions thereof. No useful purpose shall be served by continuing with the
FIR in view of the aforesaid position. The present petition is accordingly
allowed. FIR No.268/2008 and all the proceedings arising therefrom, stand
quashed.
6. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JULY 22, 2010 JUDGE
mk
