Shri Nitesh Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr. on 15 September, 2017

$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2678/2017
SHRI NITESH KUMAR ORS ….. Petitioners
Through Mr.Siddharth Tewari, Adv. with
Mr.Mahesh Tewari, Mr.Ashok Kr. Sharma and
Mr.Amrendra Kr. Mishra, Advs. with petitioners
in person.

versus

STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Through Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for Ms.Richa
Kapur, ASC for State with W/ASI Pushpa, P.S.
Mianwali Nagar.
Mr.Dilip Kr. Singh, Adv. for R-2 along with
respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

ORDER

% 15.09.2017
Crl.M.A. 15358/2017 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2678/2017

1. Notice. Learned counsel for the State, who appears on an advance
copy having been served, accepts notice.

2. Notice to respondent no. 2 also. Respondent no. 2 appears is person
and accepts notice. She is being represented by her counsel. She is
duly identified by IO W/ASI Pushpa.

3. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under

W.P. (Crl.) No.2678/2017 Page 1 of 4
Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.PC’) for quashing of
the FIR bearing No.369/2016, registered on 13.08.2016 against them
with Police Station Mianwali Nagar, West 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 19.05.2011 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Patna,
Bihar. However, out of this wedlock no child was born.

5. The petitioner no.2 is the father of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner
no.3 is the mother of the petitioner no.1.

6. After solemnization of their marriage, the petitioner no. 1 and the
respondent no. 2 started residing together in 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
01.07.2014 and started residing separately.

7. The respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint with CAW Cell which
culminated into said FIR against the petitioners.

8. The petitioner No.1 instituted a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (in short “HM Act”) for restitution of conjugal rights before
the Principal Judge, Family Court, South West District, Dwarka,
bearing HMA No.682/2015.

9. On making a reference by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
South West District, Dwarka, the parties had appeared before the
learned Counsellor, Counselling Cell, attached to learned Principal
Judge. They had resolved and settled all their disputes on 17.10.2016.

W.P. (Crl.) No.2678/2017 Page 2 of 4

By this settlement, the petitioner 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.5,50,000/- to the respondent no. 2 in full and final settlement of
her all claims including the maintenance and cost of dowry/stridhan
articles. The petitioner No.1 had agreed to withdraw petition u/s 9 of
the HM Act.

10. Pursuant to this settlement, at the time of recording the statement of
the parties in the first motion petition, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was
paid by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 2. Further, a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2
at the time of recording their statement in the second motion petition.
A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted on 10.07.2017 by
the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South West
District, Dwarka, New Delhi, by which the marriage between the
petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.2 was dissolved.

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

12. The petitioner no.1 submits that he had withdrawn his petition u/s 9 of
the HM Act.

13. Today, the petitioner No.1 has paid the balance settlement amount of
Rs.50,000/- vide DD No.412780 dated 14.08.2017 issued by State
Bank of India, in favour of respondent No.2, which has been accepted
by her. She submits that she has received the entire settlement
amount from the petitioner No.1. She submits that she does not want

W.P. (Crl.) No.2678/2017 Page 3 of 4
to pursue the said FIR. She submits that the said FIR may be quashed.

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

15. Both the parties submit that now nothing is due and recoverable by
them against each other. Since the parties have amicably settled their
all disputes, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing
the said FIR. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing
No.369/2016, registered on 13.08.2016 with Police Station Mianwali
Nagar, West District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and
proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed.

16. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

17. DASTI.

VINOD GOEL, J.

SEPTEMBER 15, 2017/jitender

W.P. (Crl.) No.2678/2017 Page 4 of 4

Leave a Comment

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