Delhi High Court
Mukesh @ Raju & Ors. vs The State & Anr on 14 January, 2016
#8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th January, 2016
+ W.P.(CRL) 40/2016 and Crl. MA No. 235/2016 (Exemption)
MUKESH @ RAJU & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Puneet Khurana, Advocate along
with petitioner no. 1
versus
THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC (Crl.)
SI Manish Kumar, P.S. Shalimar Bagh
Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary, Adv. for
Resp. no. 2/Complainant along with
complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
quashing of FIR No. 182/2013 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at
Police Station- Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner no. 1 (husband) and
respondent No.2/complainant (wife) were married to each other according to
Hindu rites and customs on 25th April, 2012. Owing to temperamental and
ideological differences between the parties to the marriage, they started
living separately since 28th September, 2012. No child has been born out of
the said wedlock. On a complaint instituted by respondent no.2 (wife), the
subject FIR was registered against the petitioner no. 1 (husband) and his
family members.
3. Counsel for the parties state that the outstanding matrimonial dispute
between the parties to the union has been settled amicably before the Delhi
Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi by way of a Settlement
Agreement dated 19th October, 2013. The salient terms and conditions of the
afore-stated settlement are as follows:-
"1) It is mutually settled between the parties that
complainant and applicant shall get dissolved their
marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent without
leveling allegations and counter allegations against each
other in accordance with law before the Court of competent
jurisdiction at Delhi.
2) It is settled that the applicant/husband shall pay Rs.
3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac only) to the
complainant/wife as her full and final satisfaction qua all
her claims (past, present & future) arising out of the
marriage with him which shall include permanent alimony,
istridhan, dowry articles, maintenance and all other
miscellaneous expenses.
3) The applicant/husband shall return the articles, as
mentioned in the admitted list Annexure-A, which has been
signed by both the parties at the time of hearing the bail
application i.e. on 26.10.2013, before the Ld. Referral
Court.
4) The settled amount will be paid in cash/DD by the
accused/husband to the complainant/wife as under:-
(i) First installment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac
only) shall be paid at the time of recording statements in
First Motion Petition U/s 13(B)(1) of Hindu Marriage Act
which will be filed by the parties jointly within one month
from today.
(ii) Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) shall be paid at
the time of recording statements in Second Motion Petition
U/s 13(B)(2) of Hindu Marriage Act which will be filed by
the parties jointly after completion of stipulated period of
six months.
(iii) The remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lac only) shall be paid to the complainant/wife by the
applicant/husband at the time of quashing of FIR No.
182/2013 PS: Shalimar Bagh, U/s 498A/406/34 IPC, State
vs. Mukesh & Ors. before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
after passing of decree of divorce in second motion
petition. The complainant/wife shall cooperate in quashing
of the said FIR."
4. In a nutshell, it has been agreed by and between the parties to the
union that respondent no. 2 (wife) shall be paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs towards
all her claims vis. a vis. permanent alimony, stridhan, dowry articles,
maintenance past, present and future etc. against the petitioners.
5. Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the said settlement
between the parties to the union, the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs has already been
received by respondent no.2 (wife). The balance sum of Rs. 1 lakh has been
brought to the Court in the shape of Demand Draft dated 5th January, 2016
bearing No. 208129 drawn on Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Gurgaon
Branch, Haryana in favour of respondent no. 2(wife) herein. The latter
acknowledges receipt thereof subject to its encashment.
6. In the present case, it is observed that pursuant to the settlement
arrived at between the parties to the union, a decree of divorce by mutual
consent dated 2nd November, 2015 has already been obtained by the parties
from the concerned Family Court, Rohini, Delhi.
7. Respondent No.2/complainant (wife), who is present in Court and has
been identified by the Investigating Officer i.e. SI Manish Kumar, Police
Station- Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, states that in pursuance to the settlement
arrived at between the parties to the union, she is no longer keen to proceed
with the subject FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
8. Since the dispute between the parties which arose out of a matrimonial
discord between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and resulted in the
registration of the subject FIR, has been settled amicably before the
Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi by way of a Settlement
Agreement dated 19th October, 2013 without any undue influence, pressure
or coercion; as the parties have obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent
on 2nd November, 2015; and the settlement between the parties is lawful, no
useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the
proceedings arising therefrom.
9. Resultantly, the FIR No. 182/2013 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC
registered at Police Station- Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and the proceedings
arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua all the petitioners
subject to each of the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each with
the Victims' Compensation Fund within a period of two weeks from today.
A copy of the receipt thereof shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in
the subject FIR.
10. With the above said directions, the writ petition is allowed and
disposed of accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JANUARY 14, 2016/sd
