Sandeep Verma & ORS v. The State (NCT Of Delhi) & ORS

$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + SANDEEP VERMA & ORS ..... Petitioners Represented by:

Mr.Vikas Bhatia, Ms.Jyoti and Mr.Prinkesh, Advocates versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by:

Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for the State and SI Devendra Singh, PS Jafrabad Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 20.07.2018 Crl.M.A.No.28141/2018 Allowed subject to just exceptions.

Crl.M.A.No.28142/2018 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 22 days in re-filing the petition is condoned.

Application is disposed of.

W.P.(Crl.) No.2154/2018 1.

By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.189/2016 under Sections 498A/406/377/34 IPC registered at PS Jafrabad on the complaint of respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the

ground that the parties have settled the matter. 2.

Learned proxy counsel for learned Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that in the above noted FIR the seven petitioners are the only accused and the respondent No.2 is the only complainant/victim. 3.

Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel and Investigating Officer states that she has settled the matter with the petitioners vide settlement deed before the Counselling Cell, Family Courts, Karkardooma on 18th May, 2017, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-P-2 to the present petition. 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. As full and final settlement of all the claims, that is, maintenance, streedhan and alimony etc. of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner No.1 has to pay a sum of ₹4 lakhs to respondent No.2 which she has already received. She further states that she has no claim whatsoever remaining against the petitioners. She states that from the wedlock of the petitioner No.

1 and respondent No.2, a son namely Naksh who is now aged 31⁄2 years old has been born who will remain in the care and custody of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 will have no visiting rights of the child. She further states that she will comply with the terms of the settlement and does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

4.

Petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statement of respondent No.2 and undertake to abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties.

5.

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.

6.

Consequently, FIR No.189/2016 under Sections 498A/406/377/34 IPC registered at PS Jafrabad and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.

7.

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

8.

Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

JULY 20, 2018 mamta