Shubham Bansal & ORS. v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2226/2024 SHUBHAM BANSAL & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Ms. Vishakha Mittal, Mr. Vikash Agarwal & Mr. Himanshu Ahuja, Advocates alongwith petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Sunit, P.S. Jagat Puri, IO/SI, Neeraj Rathi, Special Cell.

Mr. Rajeev Kumar Rai, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 19.03.2024 CRL.M.A. 8622/2024 (Exemption) 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2.

The application is accordingly disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2226/2024 3.

The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 363/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Jagat Puri, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet filed and pending before the Court of Ms. Shruti Sharma, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

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

4.

The marriage between the petitioner no.1/husband and the respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 12.03.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and one female child was born out of the said wedlock. 5.

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties resided separately from 02.10.2018. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged a FIR against petitioner no. 1 (husband), petitioner no. 2 (mother-in-law) and petitioner no. 3 (fatherin-law). 6.

On 03.08.2023, parties arrived at a settlement before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Annexure-C). As per the said settlement, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- 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.

7.

In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 07.11.2023, passed by Ms. Twinkle Wadhwa, Judge, Family Court-02, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Annexure E). Further, as per the settlement, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been paid to her in Court today, by means of a demand draft. As per the said settlement, custody of the minor child will be with the respondent no. 2 and the petitioner no. 1 will have no visitation rights.

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 Officers, SI Sunit, P.S. Jagat Puri & IO/SI, Neeraj Rathi, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Special Cell.

9.

A Demand Draft bearing no. 726235, dated 16.02.2024, for Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Delhi 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 against the petitioners. She further states that all the terms of the settlement have been complied with.

11.

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP 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, 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."

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. 363/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Jagat Puri, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet filed and pending before the Court of Ms. Shruti Sharma, learned Metropolitan The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Magistrate, Mahila Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 14.

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 363/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Jagat Puri, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet filed and pending before the Court of Ms. Shruti Sharma, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, is hereby quashed. 15.

It is however directed that this order shall not come in the way of the minor child in claiming her rights of inheritance, maintenance, educational & marriage expenses, etc. against any of the parties. 16.

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 17.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMIT SHARMA, J MARCH 19, 2024/bsr The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.