Delhi High Court
Prabhat Gandhi & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 28 July, 2017
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1234/2017
PRABHAT GANDHI & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Rajiv Taneja, Adv. with
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Piyush Singhal, Adv. for
Mr.Ashish Agarwal, ASC for State with SI
Kuldeep.
Mr.Amit Kocher, Adv. for R-2 along with
respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER
% 28.07.2017
1. On taking objection by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2,
learned counsel for the petitioner states, on instructions, that he does
not press ground (a) of the petition. Ordered accordingly.
2. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under
Article 226 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. 226/2016, registered on 18.02.2016 with Police
Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.
3. The marriage of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 was
solemnized on 29.01.2007 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi.
Out of the said wedlock, a male child namely Samarth Gandhi was
born on 25.06.2008.
4. The petitioner no. 2 is the mother of the petitioner no.1.
5. 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 along with the child Samarth Gandhi
left the matrimonial home and she started living with her parents with
effect from 01.06.2015.
6. The respondent no. 2 lodged the said FIR on 18.02.2016 against the
petitioners. She had filed a petition 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, North West, Delhi.
She also filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC for maintenance
against the petitioner no.1 before Principal Judge, Family Court,
North West, Rohini Court, Delhi. She also filed an appeal being
aggrieved by an order passed on her application under Section 12 of
the DV Act before the Session Judge which was assigned to the Court
of learned ASJ, North West, Rohini Court, Delhi.
7. The petitioner No.2 had also filed a civil suit for possession in respect
of property No.1343, 2nd Floor, Dr.Mukherjee Nagar, North West,
Delhi, against the respondent No.2.
8. The parties have arrived at a settlement in terms of Settlement Deed
dated 03.06.2016.
9. By this settlement, the parties have decided to part company of each
other and obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It was agreed
that their minor child 'Samarth Gandhi' shall remain in custody of
respondent No.2 and that the petitioner No.1 shall have visitation
rights as detailed in Settlement Deed dated 03.06.2016. It has also
been settled that the petitioner no. 1 shall pay a total sum of
Rs.21,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 in full and final settlement of
all her claims which include (i) her maintenance (ii) cost of dowry
articles and (iii) maintenance amount of Rs.10 lac for benefit of their
minor child 'Samarth Gandhi'. The respondent No.2 had 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. She had also agreed to
withdrawn appeal which was filed against an order passed on her
application under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Session Judge.
The respondent No.2 had also agreed to vacate the property No.1343,
2nd Floor, Dr.Mukherjee Nagar, North West, Delhi and hand over its
vacant and peaceful possession to the petitioner No.2.
10. Pursuant to this settlement, on 03.06.2016 the petitioner No.1 paid a
sum of Rs.1 lac at the time of signing of settlement deed. On
18.06.2016 at the time of vacating the property No.1343, 2nd Floor,
Dr.Mukherjee Nagar, North West, Delhi, and handing over the
peaceful possession to the petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.1 paid a
sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent No.2. In first motion while
recording the statement of the parties, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was
paid to the respondent no. 2 by the petitioner no. 1. Further a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the respondent no. 2 by the petitioner no. 1
on 9th March, 2017 by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of
their minor child namely Samarth Gandhi. On the said date, the
respondent No.2 had withdrawn her petition under Section 125 of
Cr.PC. At the time of recording the statement of the parties in the
second motion petition, the petitioner no.1 paid further a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent No.2.
11. On 09.03.2017, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed by
the court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, North, Delhi and the
marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.2 was
dissolved. 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, Mahila Court, Delhi, as well as appeal which was filed
against an order passed on her application under Section 12 of the DV
Act before the Session Judge. Respondent no. 2 also submits that she
had also withdrawn the petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC.
12. The petitioner No.2 submits that she had also withdrawn civil suit for
possession in respect of property No.1343, 2nd Floor, Dr.Mukherjee
Nagar, North West, Delhi, filed against the respondent No.2.
13. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have also agreed that their minor
child namely Samarth Gandhi shall remain in the custody of the
respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 shall have the visitation
rights as detailed in para 5 of the settlement deed dated 03.06.2016.
14. Today, as per the settlement between the parties, the petitioner no. 1
has delivered three Demand Drafts bearing no.033324 dated
29.03.2017 for Rs.1,75,000/-, bearing no.033325 dated 29.03.2017
for Rs.1,75,000/- and bearing no.033334 dated 31.03.2017 for
Rs.1,50,000/- issued by Bank of Maharashtra, Delhi, in the name of
their child Samarth Gandhi, to the respondent no. 2, being the balance
settlement amount. Copies of the same are placed on record.
Respondent No.2 has accepted the same. She confirms having
received the entire settlement amount of Rs.21,00,000/- from the
petitioner no. 1.
15. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which had been paid to the respondent
No.2 for the benefit of Samarth Gandhi on 9th March, 2017 and
Rs.5,00,000/- paid today, totalling to Rs.10,00,000/-, shall be kept in
the Fixed Deposit Receipt by the respondent no.2 till the minor child
namely Samarth Gandhi attains the majority. The respondent No.2
will deposit these three Demand Drafts in the bank and she will get
issued Fixed Deposit Receipts for the period till minor attains the
majority. As agreed, the respondent No.2 shall be entitled to receive
and utilize the interest on the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the
benefit of the minor.
16. The respondent no. 2 confirms that she has willingly settled the matter
with the petitioners without any force or coercion and she does not
want to pursue the said FIR. She submits that the FIR may be
quashed.
17. 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
pursuing with the FIR bearing No. 226/2016, registered on
18.02.2016 with Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR
bearing No. 226/2016, registered on 18.02.2016 with Police Station
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and
proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
18. The petition is disposed of.
VINOD GOEL, J.
JULY 28, 2017/jitender
