Delhi High Court
Udit Mehra & Ors. vs State & Anr on 19 January, 2016
#32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th January, 2016
+ W.P.(CRL) 170/2016, Crl. MA No. 927/2016 (Exemption) and
Crl. MA No. 928/2016 (for condonation of delay)
UDIT MEHRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Santosh Kumar K., Advocate
along with petitioner no. 1
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Crl.)
ASI Ombir Singh, P.S. Dabri
Mr. Ravi Mehta, 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. 571/2013 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at
Police Station- Dabri, 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 6th February, 2013. Owing to temperamental
and ideological differences between the parties to the marriage, they started
living separately since 17th August, 2013. 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
Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. The salient terms
and conditions of the settlement as enshrined in the order dated 10 th March,
2014 are as follows:-
"Vide this order, I shall dispose off the anticipatory bail
application of the applicant Udit Mehra.
Brief facts of the complaint are that after the marriage of
complainant, applicant and his family members started
torturing, harassing and beating the complainant on
account of dowry.
It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that
allegations regarding the beatings are vague and all the
family members have been falsely implicated in this case.
It is further contended that no demand of dowry was ever
made by the applicant or his family members. It is further
contended that no useful purpose will be served by keeping
the applicant behind the bars. It is further stated by the
counsel for the applicant that applicant is ready to join
investigation as and when directed by the IO.
At this stage, father of the applicant Anil Mehra submits
that he is ready to settle the matter with the complainant in
person has also not opposed such offer given by her father-
in-law. Matter is settled between the parties for an amount
of Rs. 19 lacs. Separate statements of both the parties
recorded in which applicant is ready to pay Rs. 5 lacs
within two weeks from today to the complainant and Rs. 5
lacs at the time of filing of First Motion and Rs. 5 lacs at
the time of filing of Second Motion and remaining Rs. 4
lacs to be paid at the time of quashing of this FIR before
the Hon'ble High Court.
As the matter has been settled between the parties and
separate statements recorded in this regard, I am of the
opinion that applicant Udit Mehra deserves concession of
bail and is hereby granted bail on furnishing of PB & SB in
sum of Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO.
Needless to say that the parties including the petitioner
and the complainant shall be bound by the terms and
conditions as recorded today itself and undertaken by them
to be honoured in due course of time. In case, any party
backed out from their undertakings/promises, the other
party will be at liberty to proceed against the defaulting
party as per law.
Application disposed off accordingly."
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. 19 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. 15 lakhs has already been
received by respondent no.2 (wife). The balance sum of Rs. 4 lakh has been
brought to the Court in the shape of a Demand Draft dated 1st January, 2016
bearing No. 014820 drawn on Axis Bank, Delhi 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 20th July, 2015 has already been obtained by the parties from
the concerned Family Court, Dwarka, Delhi.
7. Respondent No.2/complainant (wife), who is present in Court and has
been identified by the Investigating Officer i.e. ASI Ombir Singh, Police
Station- Dabri, 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
Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi without any undue
influence, pressure or coercion; as the parties have obtained decree of
divorce by mutual consent on 20th July, 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. 571/2013 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC
registered at Police Station- Dabri, 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. 5,000/- 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 19, 2016/sd
