Delhi High Court
Satya Prakash Shrivastav & Ors. vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 28 February, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.02.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 585/2024
SATYA PRAKASH SHRIVASTAV & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R. P. S. Bhatti, Advocate with
Petitioner No. 1-in-person.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with
SI Ved Prakash, PS: Kalindi Kunj.
Mr. Tanya Agarwal and Mr. Nikhil
Srivastava, Advocate for R-2 with
Respondent No. 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. 0321/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at
P.S.: Kalindi Kunj, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
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 08.12.2017. No child was born out of the wedlock. Due to
temperamental differences between the parties, petitioner No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 started living separately. On complaint of respondent
No. 2, present FIR was registered on 25.08.2019.
4. The disputes have been amicably resolved between the parties. 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 13.04.2022.
5. Balance amount of Rs. 90,000/- has been paid to respondent No. 2
through Cheque No. 538280 dated 28.02.2024 drawn on State Bank of India,
Nizamuddin Branch, 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. Petitioner No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 are present in person and
have been identified by SI Ved Prakash, PS: Kalindi Kunj, Delhi. Presence
of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is exempted. 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. 0321/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC,
registered at P.S.: Kalindi Kunj, Delhi and the 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.
FEBRUARY 28, 2024/R
