Rahul Jain & ANR. v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 716/2024 & CRL.M.A. 2872/2024 (Exemption) RAHUL JAIN & ANR.

..... Petitioners Through:

Counsel appearance not given.

Petitioners in person.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State.

W/SI Roshni Sharma, PS Nanak Pura.

Mr. Irfan Ahmad and Ms. Huma, Advocates for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 30.01.2024 1.

The present petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeks quashing of the FIR No. 51/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Nanakpura and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.

2.

The marriage between the petitioner no.1/husband and the respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 16.05.2010 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 12.03.2015. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant registered an FIR against The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

petitioner no. 1 (husband) and petitioner no. 2 (mother-in-law). 4.

On 16.05.2023, parties arrived at a settlement before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, and as per the said settlement deed, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- 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 09.12.2023, passed by Sh. Paramjit Singh, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South, Saket Courts, Delhi (Annexure C). Further, as per the settlement deed, an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- has been paid to her in Court today, by means of two demand drafts. As per the said settlement, custody of the minor child will be with the respondent no. 2 and the petitioner no. 1 will have visitation rights as per the settlement agreement (Annexure B). 6.

Petitioners 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, W/SI Roshni Sharma, PS Nanak Pura. 7.

Demand Drafts bearing no. 006815 and 006814 dated 30.01.2024 for Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively drawn on HDFC Bank, Kamal Cinema, New Delhi have been handed over to the Complainant/Respondent No.2, who acknowledges the receipt of the same. 8.

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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

have been complied with.

9.

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 10.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble 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."

11.

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. 51/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Nanakpura and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. 12.

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 51/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Nanakpura and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, is hereby quashed.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

13.

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. 14.

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 15.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMIT SHARMA, J JANUARY 30, 2024/sn The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2024 at 12:44:22