Delhi High Court
Rohitash Mahur And Others vs The State And Another on 2 April, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 1937/2024
ROHITASH MAHUR AND OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate with
Petitioners-in-person.
versus
THE STATE AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with
ASI Vinod Kumar, PS: Mandawali.
Mr. Shubham Rajput, Advocate for
R-2 with R-2-in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of
FIR No. 0173/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at
P.S.: Mandawali Fazalpur and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel
respondent No. 2 along with respondent No. 2 in person appear on advance
notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner
No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies on 11.12.2006. A male child was born out of the wedlock, who is
presently in custody of respondent No. 2. Due to temperamental differences,
petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 started living separately. On complaint
of respondent No. 2, present FIR was registered on 08.04.2016.
4. The disputes have been amicably resolved between the parties vide
settlement deed dated 02.11.2023. The marriage between petitioner No. 1
and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by decree of divorce by way of
mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide
judgment dated 04.01.2024.
5. Balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid to respondent No. 2
today through DD No. 206298 dated 04.03.2024 drawn on Punjab National
Bank, DAV Tiraha, Bulandshahr, U.P. Branch in favour of respondent No. 2,
towards full and final settlement between the parties.
6. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
7. Petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 are present in person, while
remaining petitioners have joined through VC and have been identified by
ASI Vinod Kumar, PS: Mandawali, Delhi. I have interacted with the parties
and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them
without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 also states that
nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and she
has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by
keeping the case pending. It would be nothing but an abuse of the process of
Court. Consequently, FIR No. 0173/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC
registered at P.S.: Mandawali Fazalpur and proceedings emanating therefrom
stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
APRIL 02, 2024/R
