Vashisht Kapoor & ANR. v. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2562/2024 & CRL.M.A. 9907/2024 (Exemption) VASHISHT KAPOOR & ANR.

..... Petitioners Through:

Ms. Sanjana Mehrotra and Mr.

Mayank Sharma, Advocates alongwith petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State.

SI Sachin Kumar, PS Jagatpuri.

Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 02.04.2024 1.

The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the FIR No. 297/2017, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Jagatpuri and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Shruti Sharma, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

2.

The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 29.04.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. 3.

No child was born out of the said wedlock.

4.

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately since April 2017. 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). 5.

On 06.09.2022, parties arrived at a settlement before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and as per the said settlement deed, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- 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 deed dated 06.09.2022 is on record (Annexure P-2).

6.

In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 04.09.2023, passed by Ms. Sarita Birbal, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Copy of the same has been handed up in Court and the same is taken on record. Further, as per the settlement deed, an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 65,000/- has been paid to her in court today, by means of two demand drafts.

7.

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, SI Sachin Kumar, PS Jagatpuri. 8.

Demand drafts bearing no. 222468 and 222469 dated 28.03.2024 for Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively drawn on Central Bank of India, Delhi have been handed over to complainant/Respondent No.2, who acknowledges the receipt of the same.

9.

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

with.

10.

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 11.

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."

12.

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. 297/2017, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Jagatpuri and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Shruti Sharma, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

13.

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 297/2017, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Jagatpuri and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Shruti Sharma, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, is hereby quashed.

14.

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.

15.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMIT SHARMA, J APRIL 02, 2024/sn Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.