Dinesh Bhandari & Ors vs State Of Nct Delhi & Anr on 7 September, 2017

$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1284/2017
DINESH BHANDARI ORS ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Aditya Tripathi, Advocate
along with petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC for
State with Mr.Piyush Singhal, Advocate
along with IO ASI Rajpal Singh, PS Madhu
Vihar, Delhi.
Ms.Samta Jain, Advocate for R-2 along with
respondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER

% 07.09.2017

1. Status report has been filed.

2. Respondent No.2 is present. She is being represented by her
counsel. She is duly identified by the IO ASI Rajpal Singh.

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. 1049/2014, registered
against them on 16.09.2014 with Police Station Madhu Vihar,
East District, Delhi under
Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC on the
complaint of respondent No.2.

4. Petitioner No. 2 is the father of petitioner no.1, petitioner no.3 is
W.P. (Crl.) 1284/2017 Page 1 of 4
the brother of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 4 is the wife of
petitioner no. 3.

5. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent no. 2
was solemnized on 29.04.2013 as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies at Ghaziabad, Delhi. However, out of this wedlock
no child was born.

6. After solemnization of marriage, the couple started living at the
matrimonial home. Due to some temperamental differences
between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent no.2, they could
not reconcile with each other. Resultantly, the respondent no.2
left the matrimonial home on 15.11.2013 and started living with
her parents.

7. Respondent No.2 filed a petition for maintenance u/s 125 of
Cr.P.C against the petitioner No.1 in the court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
She also preferred a petition under
Section 12 of the Protection
of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2015 (in short “D.V.
Act”) before the court of the learned MM, Mahila Court,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. She lodged a complaint with
CAW Cell which culminated into the said FIR.

8. Subsequent to the registration of the said FIR, the parties had
amicably settled and resolved all their disputes. At this stage,
learned counsel for petitioner has handed over a copy of the
Memorandum of Understanding/Compromise Deed dated
17.05.2016, executed between petitioner no.1 and respondent
no.2 which is taken on record. By this settlement, the petitioner

W.P. (Crl.) 1284/2017 Page 2 of 4
no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 had decided to part company of
each other and obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
The petitioner no.1 had agreed to pay a total sum of
Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent no. 2 in full and final settlement
of her all claims including the maintenance and cost of
dowry/stridhan articles. The respondent no. 2 had also agreed to
withdraw both her petitions filed under
Section 12 of D.V. Act
and 125 of
Cr.PC from the concerned courts.

9. The respondent No.2 states that she had voluntarily resolved all
disputes with the petitioners without any coercion or force.

10. Pursuant to this settlement, the respondent no. 2 submits that
she had withdrawn both her petitions filed under
Section 12 of
D.V. Act from the court of learned MM, Mahila Court, Delhi
and under
Section 125 of Cr.PC from the court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Delhi. At the time of recording
the settlement between the parties, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was
paid by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 2. At the time
of recording of the statements of the parties in the first motion
petition, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was further paid by the
petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 2. At the time of
recording of the statements of the parties in the second motion
petition, further a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by the
petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 2. Petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.2 and learned counsel for the parties submit that a
decree of divorce by mutual consent was awarded on
09.02.2017 by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family

W.P. (Crl.) 1284/2017 Page 3 of 4
Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by which the marriage
between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.2 was
dissolved.

11. Today, the petitioner No.1 has paid the balance settlement
amount of Rs.50,000/- vide Demand Draft No. 143964 dated
06.07.2017 issued by State Bank of India, Palam Village, Delhi
to respondent No.2, which she has accepted. The respondent
no. 2 submits that she has received the entire settlement amount
from the petitioner No.1. She submits that she does not want to
pursue the said FIR. She submits that the said FIR may be
quashed.

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

13. Both the parties submit that now nothing is due and recoverable
by them against each other. The matter had been amicably
settled between the parties and no fruitful purpose would be
served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, to secure ends
of justice, the said FIR bearing No. 1049/2014, registered on
16.09.2014 with Police Station Madhu Vihar, (East Delhi
District), Delhi under
Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and
proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed.

14. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

15. DASTI.

VINOD GOEL, J.

SEPTEMBER 07, 2017
“shailendra”

W.P. (Crl.) 1284/2017 Page 4 of 4

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *