Pardeep & ANR. v. The State & ANR.

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 530/2024 & CRL.M.A. 2102/2024 (Exemption) PARDEEP & ANR.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Rama Nand, Advocate alongwith P-1 in person.

versus THE STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State.

SI Manoj Kr., PS Mundka.

Ms. Sumitra Rani, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 26.02.2024 1.

The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 116/2020, under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at PS Mudka and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet filed and pending before the Court of Ms. Aneeza Bishnoi, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. 2.

The marriage between the petitioner no.1/husband and the respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 23.03.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and one male child namely was born out of the said wedlock. 3.

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties resided separately from 26.02.2020. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant registered an FIR against petitioner no. 1 (husband) and petitioner no. 2 (mother-in-law). The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4.

On 29.01.2023, parties arrived at a memorandum of understanding and as per the said settlement deed, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the respondent no.2/wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims including istridhan, permanent alimony and maintenance - present, past and future.

5.

In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 14.12.2023, passed by Ms. Bhawna Jain, Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar Camp, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. A copy of the decree has been handed up in Court today and taken on record. As per the said settlement, custody of the minor child will be with petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 will have no visitation rights. The settlement amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- has already been paid to respondent no. 2/complainant.

6.

On an oral request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner no. 2 is exempted from personal appearance on account of medical issues. Petitioner no. 1 and complainant/respondent no. 2 are present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel, as well as the Investigating Officer, SI Manoj Kr., PS Mundka.

7.

The complainant/respondent no.2 states that the matter has been settled with the petitioners and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed against the petitioners. She further states that all the terms of the settlement have been complied with.

8.

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 9.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:- "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

10.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and the fact that the parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 116/2020, under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at PS Mudka and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet filed and pending before the Court of Ms. Aneeza Bishnoi, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi.

11.

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 116/2020, under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at PS Mudka and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet filed and pending before the Court of Ms. Aneeza Bishnoi, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi, is hereby quashed.

12.

It is however directed that this order shall not come in the way of the minor child in claiming his rights of inheritance, maintenance, educational & marriage expenses, etc. against any of the parties. 13.

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

14.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMIT SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 26, 2024/sn The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.