Ramesh Chander vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 4944 Del

$~4
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of Decision: July 13, 2015

+                             CRL.M.C. 1692/2015
      RAMESH CHANDER                                     ..... Petitioner
                  Through:              Mr. Ratneshwar Pandey, Advocate

                     versus

      STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.               .....Respondents
                    Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional
                              Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                              State with SI Surender Kumar
                              Mr. Satish Kumar Bhatti, Advocate
                              with respondent No.2-in-person

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Quashing of FIR No.446/2014 under Sections 451/380 of IPC registered at P.S. Shahbad Dairy, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 22nd April, 2015 (Annexure P-3).

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that petitioner has acted upon the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding but respondent-complainant is not coming forward for getting the FIR of this case quashed.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent-complainant is present in the Court and he submits that

CRL.M.C. 1692/2015 Page 1 she has received the settled amount but the compromise ought to be composite one. That is to say, the divorce by mutual consent ought to be obtained by the parties before seeking quashing of the FIR in question.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure P-3), I find that the stand taken by respondent- complainant appears to be quite reasonable. As of now, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR in question on the strength of the Memorandum of Understanding. However, the parties would be well advised to explore a possibility of mediation through the Mediation Centre and thereafter, obtain the divorce by mutual consent and then only to seek the quashing of the FIR in question.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of while not commenting upon merits of this case.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE
JULY 13, 2015
s




CRL.M.C. 1692/2015                                                  Page 2