Delhi High Court
Pankaj Sharma vs State Of Nct & Anr. on 27 July, 2018
$~2 to 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.07.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 2754/2018
PANKAJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT & ANR ..... Respondents
+ CRL.M.C. 2756/2018
PANKAJ SHARMA & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
STATE OF NCT & ANR ..... Respondents
+ CRL.M.C. 2758/2018
PANKAJ SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
STATE OF NCT & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms.Mumtaz Ahmed, Adv for petitioners.
For the Respondents: Mr., Addl. PP for the State with Insp.Satinder Singh
and SI Amit Dutt, P.S.Lajpat Nagar.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
27.07.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No. 9802 & 9803/2018 (Exemption)
Crl. M.A. No. 9810/2018 (Exemption)
Crl. M.A. No. 9812/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 2754/2018, 2756/2018 & 2758/2018
1. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.2754/2018 seek quashing of FIR No.
299 of 2015 under the Information Technology Act at Police Station
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi; petitioners in Crl.M.C.2756/2018 seek
quashing of FIR No. 282 of 2013 under Sections 451/323/34 of the
IPC at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and petitioners in
Crl.M.C.2758/2018 seek quashing of FIR No. 444 of 2013 under
Sections 498A/406 of the IPC at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New
Delhi, based on a settlement. It is contended that the FIRs were lodged
consequent to a matrimonial discord.
2. Respondent No. 2 Complainant was married to Mr. Pankaj
Sharma who is the petitioner No.1 in all the three petitions.
3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have
settled their disputes and have amicably dissolved their marriage by
mutual consent and decree of divorce dated 25.05.2017 has been
passed. It is further submitted on behalf of the parties that parties had
entered into the settlement vide Deed of Settlement dated 14.05.2016
before the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi which has been executed.
4. In Crl.M.C.2758/2018 learned counsel for the petitioners prays
that petitioner Nos.2 & 3 be granted exemption from personal
appearance. It is submitted that petitioner No.2 is the mother of
petitioner No.1 and she is bed ridden on account of which she could
not travel to Court today. Further it is stated that petitioner No.3 is the
sister of petitioner No.1 and is a teacher in a school and on account of
her engagement could not be present. Prayer is made for granting
exemption from personal appearance. Their affidavits in support of
the petitions have been filed. Accordingly, petitioner Nos.2 & 3 in
Crl.M.C.2758/2018 are granted exemption from personal appearance.
5. As per the settlement, a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was agreed
to be paid to respondent no. 2. The amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- has
already been paid to respondent no. 2. The balance amount of
Rs.25,000/- has been paid in cash in Court today.
6. Learned counsel for the parties inform that the other disputes
between the parties have also been resolved and proceedings have
been concluded on the basis of the subject settlement.
7. As per the settlement agreement, the permanent custody of the
minor child is to remain with respondent No.2. The petitioner has
some visitation rights to the child. The petitioner undertakes that he
shall not claim any rights contrary to the settlement terms. The
undertaking is accepted.
8. Respondent no. 2 who is present in court in person is identified
by the IO. Respondent no. 2 submits that she has settled the dispute
with the petitioners and is agreeable to the settlement and does not
wish to press the criminal charges against the petitioners any further.
9. In view of the fact that the disputes between the petitioners and
respondent no. 2 emanate out of a matrimonial discord and have been
settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in
futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of
justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to
quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating
there from.
10. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed. FIR No. 299 of
2015 under the Information Technology Act at Police Station Lajpat
Nagar, New Delhi; FIR No. 282 of 2013 under Sections 451/323/34 of
the IPC at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and FIR No. 444 of
2013 under Sections 498A/406 of the IPC at Police Station Lajpat
Nagar, New Delhi, and the consequent proceedings emanating there
from are, accordingly quashed.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JULY 27, 2018/rk
