Rohit Bahl & ORS v. State & ANR

$~44 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1789/2015 ROHIT BAHL & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.Akshay Chandra and Mr. P.N.

Upadhyay, Advs.

versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with Ms.Srilina Roy, Adv. with SI H.P. Mudgal, PS Paschim Vihar Mr. Ashish Rai, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 19.08.2015 Crl.M.A.11940/2015 Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 1789/2015 The petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2 whereas petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 are directly related to petitioner No.1. The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.539/2014 (PS Paschim Vihar) instituted for offences under Sections 406, 498A and 34 of the IPC.

Petitioner No.1, Rohit Bahl, got married to Chitra Bahl (respondent No.2) in

the year 2012. From 2014 onwards petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are staying separately because of differences between them. After having realised that the relationship between the man and wife has irretrievably broken down, the parties decided to part ways amicably. By way of an agreement executed on 3.1.2015, it was decided amongst the parties that on payment of Rs.9,50,000/- to respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement of her claims, past, present and future, the respondent No.2 would not prosecute the petitioners any further. As part of the arrangement, it was also agreed upon between the parties that cases filed by respective parties against the other at all forums would be withdrawn. It was further agreed upon that neither of the parties would initiate any further proceeding civil or criminal before any Court with respect to any scheme whatsoever.

A decree of divorce has also been passed.

The substantial portion of the amount agreed upon to be paid to respondent No.2 has already been paid.

The balance amount of Rs.3 lacs (demand draft) has been paid to respondent No.2 today in Court in the presence of Mr.Ashish Rai, learned counsel appearing for her. Considering the above conspectus of facts and stages, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the subject FIR to be investigated any further.

It has been submitted that a report under Section 173 Cr.PC has not yet been filed before the Court. On the strength of the above premised issues, the FIR No.539/2014 and the

resultant proceedings are hereby quashed.

The petition is allowed.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 19, 2015 ns