$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 16th August, 2017
+ W.P.(CRL) 2310/2017
MANISH JOSHI ORS ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra Standing Counsel
with Sh. Jamal Akhtar, Advocate with S.I.
R.N. Pathak, P.S. Jagatpuri, Delhi.
Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate for R-2
alongwith respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 13065/2017 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 2310/2017
1. Notice. Learned Standing Counsel, who appears on an advance
copy, accepts the notice.
2. Notice to respondent No.2 also. She is present and accepts the
notice. She is duly identified by the IO SI R.N. Pathak
3. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section
W.P. (Crl.) 2310/2017 Page 1 of 5
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.PC’)
for quashing of the FIR bearing No.278/2015, registered on
03.05.2015 with Police Station Jagatpuri, Delhi, under Sections
498A/406/377/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2.
4. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent no. 2
was solemnized on 11.02.2008 as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies in Delhi. Out of this wedlock a male child namely
Master Mitansh Joshi was born on 07.04.2009.
5. The petitioner No.2 is the mother of the petitioner No.1,
petitioner No.3 is the uncle of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.4 is
the wife of petitioner No.3 and petitioners No.5 and 6 are sons
of petitioners No.3 and 4.
6. Due to some temperamental differences, the petitioner No.1 and
the respondent no.2 could not reconcile with each other.
Resultantly, the respondent no.2 left the matrimonial home and
started residing with her parents since 17.11.2012.
7. The petitioner No.1 filed a petition bearing HMA No.84/2013
for divorce before Principal Judge, Family Court, East District,
Vishwas Nagar, Delhi against the respondent No.2. The
respondent No.2 had also filed a Guardianship Petition
No.04/2013 against the petitioner No.1 before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, East District, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. The
respondent No.2 also lodged a complaint which culminated into
the FIR No.278 of 2015 under Sections 498A/406/377/34 IPC
in P.S. Jagat Puri, Delhi.
8. The parties had amicably resolved their disputes in Delhi High
W.P. (Crl.) 2310/2017 Page 2 of 5
Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 16.02.2016. By
this settlement, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have
decided to part company of each other and obtain a decree of
divorce by mutual consent. They had also agreed that the
custody of the child shall remain exclusively with the petitioner
No.1. The respondent No.2 had agreed to abandon all her claims
of guardianship, custody and visitation rights over the child.
The petitioner No.1 had also agreed to pay Rs.17,00,000/- to the
respondent no. 2 in full and final settlement of all her claims
including permanent alimony, maintenance, cost of dowry
articles, etc. They had also agreed to withdraw their respective
petitions, being HMA No.84 of 2013 (New No.710/2014) for
divorce filed by the petitioner No.1 and petition being
Guardianship Petition No.GS-04 of 2013 filed by the
respondent No.2.
9. Pursuant to the mediation settlement, the petitioner No.1 had
withdrawn his petition for divorce bearing HMA No.84 of 2013
(New No.710/2014) from the court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Delhi. The respondent No.2, present in the court,
submits that she had withdrawn her Guardianship Petition
No.GS-04 of 2013 from the court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Delhi.
10. It is submitted that at the time of withdrawal of the
Guardianship Petition No.GS-04 of 2013 from the court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Delhi, a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-
was paid to the respondent No.2 by the petitioner No.1. At the
W.P. (Crl.) 2310/2017 Page 3 of 5
time of recording the statement of the parties in the first motion
petition, the petitioner No.1 had further paid a sum of
Rs.4,25,000/- to the respondent No.2. In the second motion
petition, the petitioner No.1 further paid a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-
to the respondent No.2. The Principal Judge, Family Court,
Delhi has passed a decree of divorce by mutual consent
whereby marriage of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent
No.2 was dissolved on 01.05.2017.
11. Today the petitioner No.1 has paid the balance settlement
amount of Rs.2,25,000/- vide DD No.048750 dated 19.07.2017
drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Dayanand Vihar Delhi to
respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 present in the court
states that she has received the settlement amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- qua the present case from the petitioners and
remaining Rs.2,00,000/- would be paid at the time of
compounding the offence in respect of FIR No.110 of 2015
registered at P.S. Farsh Bazar, Delhi under Sections 506 and
509 IPC. She submits that she does not want to pursue the
present FIR. She submits that the FIR may be quashed.
12. Learned Standing Counsel through the I.O. submits that the
charge sheet has not been filed.
13. Both the parties submit that now nothing is due and recoverable
by them against each other. Parties have amicably settled all
their disputes and no purpose would be served in further
pursuing with the FIR bearing No.278/2015, registered on
03.05.2015 with Police Station Jagatpuri, Delhi, under Sections
W.P. (Crl.) 2310/2017 Page 4 of 5
498A/406/377/34 IPC. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR
bearing No.278/2015, registered on 03.05.2015 with Police
Station Jagatpuri, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/377/34 IPC
and proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
14. The petition is disposed of.
15. Order Dasti.
VINOD GOEL, J.
AUGUST 16, 2017/sandeep
W.P. (Crl.) 2310/2017 Page 5 of 5
