Satish Kumar & ORS v. The State NCT Of Delhi & ANR

$~15 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1029/2017 SATISH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate with petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State with SI Ved Parkash, P.S SB Dairy, Delhi.

Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, proxy for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R

% 13.09.2017 1.

Status report has been filed.

2.

Respondent no. 2 appears in person and accepts notice. She is being represented by her counsel. She is duly identified by IO SI Ved Parkash.

3.

The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") for quashing of the FIR bearing No.632/2014, registered against them on 04.06.2014 with Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Outer District, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2. 4.

The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 16.02.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi.

After the solemnization of marriage, the couple started residing at the matrimonial home. Out of this wedlock, one female child was born. 5.

Due to some temperamental differences between them, they could not reconcile with each other. Resultantly, the respondent no.2 left the matrimonial home on 16.10.2013 along with her child. 6.

The respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint in CAW Cell which culminated into the said FIR.

The petitioner No.1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce against the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 preferred a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

7.

Subsequently the petitioners and respondent No.2. had amicably resolved and settled all their disputes. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had decided to reside together peacefully. They also agreed to withdraw their respective petitions filed by them. 8.

Pursuant to the settlement, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 submits that they had withdrawn their respective petitions. They submit that they have been residing together peacefully since 21.09.2016. They submit that now they do not have any dispute or problem with each other.

9.

The respondent No.2 submits that in view of the settlement she does not want to pursue the said FIR. She submits that the said FIR may be quashed.

10.

Learned APP through the IO submits that the charge sheet has so far not been filed.

11.

Since the parties have amicably settled all their disputes, no fruitful

purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing No.632/2014, registered against them on 04.06.2014 with Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Outer District, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. 12.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

13.

DASTI.

VINOD GOEL, J.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 "sandeep"