Sawan Kumar & ORS. v. State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And ANR.
$~70 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ SAWAN KUMAR & ORS.
.....Petitioners Through:
Mr.
Kapil Sharma, Ms.
Mahak Agarwal and Mr. Shivam Pandey, Advocates.
versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State.
Ms. Archana Gaur, Ms. Nandita Rao and Mr. Jai Shankar, Advocates for R-2.
ASI Rajendra, PS Dayal Pur
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
O R D E R
% 27.11.2024 CRL.M.A. 35555/2024 (exemption) Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions. Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. The application stands disposed-of.
By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners, who are the former husband and in-laws of the complainant/respondent No.2, seek quashing of case FIR No.572/2020 dated 03.11.2020 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') at P.S.: Dayalpur, North-East Delhi.
2.
The petition is premised on Deed of Settlement/MoU dated 14.09.2024 signed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2; and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Divorce Decree dated 13.11.2024, which is the culmination of petitions under sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, whereby the parties had sought dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.
3.
The petition is supported by affidavits of the petitioners, as also of respondent No.2, alongwith proof of their IDs. 4.
The petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.
5.
The parties have confirmed that one child, viz. Master Viraj was born from the wed-lock, who is minor as of date.
6.
No appeal is stated to have been filed from the divorce decree. 7.
The court has queried respondent No.2, who confirms that she has taken divorce by mutual consent; and that a deed of settlement/MoU has been entered into between the parties; and that in full-and-final settlement of all her claims including towards maintenance (past, present and future), stridhan, dowry articles, jewellery, permanent alimony, etc., she was to receive a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from petitioner No.1; out of which Rs.15,00,000/- was paid earlier and Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid in court today, in compliance of the terms of the deed of settlement. Respondent No. 2 confirms that all aspects of the settlement have now been performed. 8.
Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned APP confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.
9.
In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab &Anr. reported as (2012) 10 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties. 10.
Accordingly, FIR No.572/2020 dated 03.11.2020 registered under sections 498-A /406/34 of the IPC at P.S.: Dayalpur, North-East Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed. 11.
Though the deed of settlement also records that the minor child shall remain in the custody of respondent No.2, it is made clear that nothing in the deed of settlement would affect the rights of the minor child to meet his father, if and when he so desires, subject to logistical convenience of the parties.
12.
Needless to add that the settlement between the parties leading to the closure of all criminal proceedings by way of the present order will in no way affect the property rights and other rights of the minor child, Viraj,vis-à-vis his father, as may be available under law, in any manner whatsoever.
13.
Petition stands disposed-of.
14.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J NOVEMBER 27, 2024/ss The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.