Pradyumna Pujari & ORS. v. State NCT Of Delhi And ANR.

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 569/2024 PRADYUMNA PUJARI & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Rajat Mathur & Mr. Anant Gautam, Advocates alongwith petitioners in person.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State with Ms. Priyam Aggarwal & Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Advocates.

W/SI Neeraj & SI Amandeep Rana, P.S. Binda Pur.

Mr. Mridul Bakshi, Mr. Nihal Singh, Advocates for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 20.02.2024 CRL.M.A. 5222/2024 (exemption) 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2.

The application is accordingly disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 569/2024 3.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 571/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Binda Pur and all The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Divya Yadav, learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, Mahila Court, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.

4.

The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 01.12.2014 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock.

5.

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately from 09.01.2019. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged an FIR against petitioner no.1 (husband), petitioner no. 2 (father-in-law) and petitioner no. 3 (motherin-law) and sister-in-law/nanad (not a party to the present petition). 6.

On 07.09.2022, parties arrived at a settlement before Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and as per the said settlement, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- 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. The copy of the aforesaid settlement dated 07.09.2022 is on record (Annexure-2 colly).

7.

In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 15.07.2023, passed by Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Principal Judge, Family Courts (HQs), South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (Annexure-3 Colly). Further, as per the settlement deed, an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid to her in court today, by means of a demand draft. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

8.

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 Neeraj, P.S. Binda Pur. 9.

A demand draft bearing no. 001559 dated 16.02.2024, for Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank has been handed over to the complainant/Respondent No.2, who acknowledges the receipt of the same. 10.

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. She further states that all the terms of the agreement have been complied with.

11.

In view of the settlement between the parties, the learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

12.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the 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 proceeding."

13.

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. 571/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Binda Pur and all other consequential The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Divya Yadav, learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, Mahila Court, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.

14.

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 571/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Binda Pur and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Divya Yadav, learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, Mahila Court, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, is hereby quashed qua the present petitioners. 15.

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 16.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMIT SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 20, 2024/bsr The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.