Rajesh @ Maya Ram & ORS v. State Of NCT Of Delhi& ANR

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RAJESH @ MAYA RAM & ORS ... Petitioners Represented by:

Mr.Nilendu Vatsyayan, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI& ANR ... Respondents Represented by:

Mr.Jamal Akhtar, proxy counsel for Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for the State Ms.Naina Walia, Advocate for respondent No.2 ASI Surender Singh, PS Ambedkar Nagar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 10.08.2018 Crl.M.A. No. 29764/2018 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.124/2016 under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter. Learned proxy counsel for the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions from Investigating Officer submits that in the above-noted FIR the eight petitioners are the only accused and respondent No.2 the only complainant/ victim.

Respondent No.2 is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. She states that she has settled the matter with the petitioners before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts on 29th January, 2018 copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-P2 to the present petition. In lieu of all her claims of maintenance, istridhan, alimony, etc., petitioner No.1 is to pay to respondent No.2 a sum of ₹50,000/- which she has already received in cash. Respondent No.2 states that now she has no claim whatsoever remaining against the petitioners. She states that from the wedlock, one minor baby girl Anushka was born who will stay with her and the petitioners will neither have the custody or the visiting rights over the child. She states that she does not wish to pursue the above-noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto and will abide by the settlement arrived at between the parties on 29th January, 2018.

Petitioners No.1 to 5 and 8 are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel. Petitioner No.6 is confined to bed and petitioner No.7 has delivered a child three days back. Thus, petitioners No.6 and 7 are exempted from appearing in Court. Petitioners No.1 to 5 and 8 affirm the statement of respondent No.2 and undertake to abide by the terms of settlement.

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.124/2016 under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Ambedkar Nagar, 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 10, 2018 'rk'