Om Prakash & Ors. vs State & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 4863 Del

$~2
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+        W.P.(CRL) 2240/2017

         OM PRAKASH & ORS.                    ..... Petitioners
                      Through Mr. K.R. Kaushik Advocate with
                      Mr.Shokeen Rajput, Advocate along with
                      petitioners in person.

                            versus

         STATE & ANR                                   ..... Respondents
                            Through     Ms. Srilina Roy, Advocate for
                            Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with SI
                            Davender Kumar, P.S. Dabri
                            Mr. M.K. Yadav, Advocate for R-2 along with
                            respondent No.2 in person.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

                            ORDER

% 08.09.2017

1. Notice. On behalf of learned ASC Ms. Nandita Rao, learned appearing counsel for the State, accepts notice.

2. Notice to respondent no. 2 also. She is present in court and accepts notice. She is being represented by her counsel. She is duly identified by IO ASI Devender Kumar.

3. 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.103/2013, registered on 21.02.2013 against them with Police Station Dabri, District South West, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2.

4. The marriage of the petitioner no.1 with the respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 28.05.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi. However, out of this wedlock no child was born.

5. After solemnization of their marriage, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 started residing together in 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 20.07.2012 and started residing separately.

6. The respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint with CAW Cell which culminated into said FIR against the petitioners.

7. The petitioner No.1 filed a divorce petition under Section 1 (1) (ia) bearing No.612/2012 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi.

8. On making reference by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi, the parties have settled all their disputes before the learned Principal Counsellor attached to the court of Family Courts, New Delhi on 08.01.2015. By this settlement, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 had decided to part company of each other and obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner no. 1 had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 in full and final settlement of her all claims including the maintenance and cost of dowry/stridhan articles.

9. Pursuant to this settlement, at the time of recording the statement of the parties in the first motion petition, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 2. Further, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2 at the time of recording their statement in the second motion petition. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was awarded on 05.12.2015 by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi by which the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.2 was dissolved. The respondent No.2 submits that she had voluntarily settled all her dispute with the petitioner without any force or coercion. She further submits that she had received all dowry articles from the petitioners.

10. Today, the petitioner No.1 has paid the balance settlement amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide DD No.676837 dated 23.05.2017 issued by Allahabad Bank, Bindapur, New Delhi Branch in favour of respondent No.2, which has been accepted by her. The respondent No.2 submits that she has received the entire settlement amount from the petitioner No.1. She submits that she does not want to pursue the said FIR. She submits that the said FIR may be quashed.

11. Learned ASC through IO submits that the charge sheet has already been filed against the petitioners.

12. Both the parties submit that now nothing is due and recoverable by them against each other. Since the parties have amicably settled their all disputes, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing with the said FIR. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing No.103/2013, registered on 21.02.2013 with Police Station Dabri,

District South West, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed.

13. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

14. DASTI.

VINOD GOEL, J.

SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 "sandeep"