Delhi High Court
Jai Kishan & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 25 July, 2017
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2102/2017
JAI KISHAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Desodya, Advocate
along with petitioners in person.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC for the State with
SI Khajan Singh, PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi.
Mr. Desh Raj, Advocate for R-2 along with
respondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER
% 25.07.2017
Crl.M.A. 11775/2017 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
W.P. (Crl.) 2102/2017
1. Notice. Learned ASC, who appears on an advance copy, accepts
notice.
2. Notice to respondent no. 2 also. She appears in person with counsel
and is duly identified by the IO SI Khajan Singh.
3. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC') for quashing
of the FIR bearing No. 298/2016, registered on 07.08.2016 with PS
Pahar Ganj, Delhi, under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
4. The marriage of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 was
solemnized on 08.12.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi.
However, no issue out of the said wedlock was born.
5. The petitioner no. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner no. 1.
6. After solemnization of marriage, the petitioner no. 1 and the
respondent no. 2 started residing at the matrimonial home. Due to
some temperamental differences between the petitioner no. 1 and the
respondent no.2 they could not reconcile with each other.
Resultantly, the respondent no.2 left the matrimonial home on
14.12.2014 and she started living with her parents.
7. The respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint with CAW Cell, Kamla
Market, Delhi, which culminated into FIR No. 298/2016 on
07.08.2016 under Section 498A/406/34 of IPC with PS Pahar Ganj,
Delhi. Respondent no. 2 had also filed a petition on 22.08.2015 under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (in short 'DV Act') before the court of learned MM, Mahila
Court, Delhi and another petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC for
maintenance against the petitioner no.1 before Principal Judge,
Family Court, Delhi.
8. The parties have arrived at a settlement before the Principal
Counsellor attached to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
9. By this settlement, the parties have decided to part company from
each other and obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It has
also been settled that the petitioner no. 1 shall pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the
respondent no. 2 in full and final settlement of all her claims including
the maintenance. It has also been agreed that the petitioners shall
return all the dowry articles including the gold chain to the respondent
no. 2. It was argued that in case gold chain is not returned, the
petition No.1 shall pay Rs.30,000/- in cash to respondent No.2. The
respondent has also agreed to withdraw both the above said petitions
i.e. under Section 12 of the DV Act and under Section 125 of Cr.PC.
10. Pursuant to this settlement, in first motion while recording the
statement of the parties, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the
respondent no. 2 by the petitioner no. 1 and further a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the respondent no. 2 by the petitioner no. 1
at the time of recording the statement of the parties in the second
motion petition. On 19.05.2017, a decree of divorce by mutual
consent was passed by the court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court,
Delhi dissolving the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the
respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 submits that she had
withdrawn her petition filed under Section 12 of the DV Act from the
court of Ld.MM-02, Mahila Court, Delhi. Respondent no. 2 also
submits that she has also withdrawn the petition under Section 125 of
Cr.PC from the court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Delhi.
11. Today, as per the settlement between the parties, the petitioner no. 1
has delivered a pay order bearing no. 513647 dated 18.07.2017 for
Rs.50,000/- issued by ICICI Bank, Delhi to the respondent no. 2,
being the balance settlement amount. Copy of the pay order is placed
on record. Respondent No.2 has accepted the same. She confirms
having received the entire settlement amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from
the petitioner no. 1. Respondent No.2 also confirms that since the
gold chain was not returned by petitioner No.1, she has received a
sum of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of the same from petitioner No.1.
12. She confirms that she has willingly settled the matter with the
petitioners without any force or coercion and she does not want to
pursue her FIR.
13. IO through the ASC submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed
as the parties have amicably arrived at the settlement.
14. Both the parties submit that now nothing is due and recoverable by
them against each other. The matter has been amicably settled
between the parties and no purpose would be served in further pursing
with the matter in the FIR bearing No. 298/2016, registered on
07.08.2016 with PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi, under Section 498A/406/34
IPC. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing No. 298/2016,
registered on 07.08.2016 with PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi, under Section
498A/406/34 IPC and proceedings arising out of the same are hereby
quashed.
15. The petition is disposed of.
VINOD GOEL, J.
JULY 25, 2017
"sk"
