Delhi High Court
Neeraj @ Raymond Henry & Ors. vs The State & Anr. on 11 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11.03.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 842/2021, CRL.M.A. 4176/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5872/2024
NEERAJ @ RAYMOND HENRY & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Hasibuddin & Mr. Sourav Ghosh,
Adv.
versus
THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State
with SI Sonu Kumar, PS Jagatpuri.
Mr. Chemendra Kaushik, 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. 0086/2018, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at P.S.:
Jagat Puri (East), Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 alongwith 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 on 25.04.2012. A daughter was
born out of the wedlock on 18.09.2015. Due to temperamental differences
between the parties, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 started living
separately since 17.03.2017. On complaint of respondent No. 2, present FIR
was registered on 20.04.2018.
4. The disputes are stated to have been amicably resolved between the
parties vide settlement deed dated 14.12.2023. The marriage between
petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by decree of
divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 10A(2) of The Divorce Act,
1869 vide judgment dated 31.01.2024.
5. Balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been paid to respondent No. 2
today through DD No. 505202 dated 20.02.2024 drawn on ICICI Bank,
Chhattarpur Branch, Delhi 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. Petitioner no. 1 and respondent No. 2 (in person) and petitioner no. 2
& 3 (through VC) have been identified by SI Sonu Kumar, P.S.: Jagat Puri,
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. 0086/2018, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC,
registered at P.S.: Jagat Puri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom
stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MARCH 11, 2024/akc
