Delhi High Court
Kamal Sharma And Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 16 April, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2234/2024
KAMAL SHARMA AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Poonam Panwar, Adv. with all
petitioners.
Petitioner no.5 Rajesh Sharma through
VC.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with
SI Suman Prasad, P.S. Subzi Mandi.
Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. for R-2
with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
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. 497/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Sarai
Rohilla and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. 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 18.04.2012. A male child was born out of the wedlock who is
presently in the 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
11.07.2016.
3. The disputes have been amicably resolved between the parties vide
settlement deed dated 18.11.2023. 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 25.01.2024.
4. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) has been handed over to
respondent No.2 today through DD No.702558 dated 12.04.2024 drawn on
Canara Bank, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi Branch in favour of minor child,
which shall be used by respondent no. 2 towards the welfare and upbringing
of minor child.
5. 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.
6. Petitioners No. 1 to 4 in person, Petitioner No. 5 (through VC) and
Respondent No.2 have been identified by SI Suman Prasad, PS: Subzi
Mandi, 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.
7. 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. 497/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC
registered at P.S.: Sarai Rohilla 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 16, 2024/akc
