Rahul Singh & ORS v. NCT Of Delhi & ANR

35# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RAHUL SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners Represented by:

Mr. Vinod K. Singh, Advocate with petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in person.

versus NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by:

Mr.R.S. Kundu, Additional Standing Counsel for State with Ms. Suman Saharan and Mr.

Abhijit Shankar, Advocates with SI Gaurav, PS GTB Enclave.

Respondent No. 2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 21.08.2018 By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 347/2016 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at PS G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that in the above noted FIR the five petitioners are the only accused and the respondent No.2 is the only complainant/ victim.

Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer states that she has settled the matter. In terms of the settlement marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2/complainant has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Respondent No. 2 states she does not claim any maintenance, streedhan and alimony etc. from the petitioners. She states that she has no claim of streedhan/dowry remaining against the petitioners and in terms of the settlement she does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. She further undertakes to abide by the terms of settlement.

Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are present in Court. Petitioner No.5 who is the paternal uncle of petitioner No.1 is not present in Court as he is unwell. Petitioner No.5 is exempted from appearing before the Court. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statement of respondent No.2 and undertake not to interfere in the future life of respondent No.2. Petitioner No.3 states that she had filed a complaint at PS Sikandara, Agra against respondent No.2 and her other family members in which a cancellation report has been filed and the same has been accepted by the learned CJM at Agra. She undertakes that she will not pursue the said complaint any further. In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings

pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

Consequently, FIR No. 347/2016 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at PS G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed qua all the petitioners.

Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.

Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

AUGUST 21, 2018 'vn'