Manoj & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 14 September, 2017

$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1703/2017
MANOJ ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through Mr. Shrawan Baby, Advocate with
petitioners in person.

versus

STATE ORS. ….. Respondents
Through Ms.Srilina Roay, Adv. for
Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC for State with SI Satyadev
Panwar, P.S. Khajuri Khas.
Mr.Qamar U. Ansari, Adv. for R-2 along with
respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER

% 14.09.2017

1. Respondent no. 2 is present in court. She is being represented by her
counsel. She is duly identified by IO SI Satyadev Panwar.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.PC’) for quashing of
the FIR bearing No.220/2016, registered on 02.03.2016 against them
with Police Station Khajuri Khas, North East District, Delhi, under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961, on the complaint of respondent No.2.

3. The marriage of the petitioner no.1 with the respondent no. 2 was
solemnized on 12.02.2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
However, out of this wedlock no child was born.

W.P. (Crl.) No.1703/2017 Page 1 of 4

4. The petitioner no.2 is the father of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner
no.3 is the mother of the petitioner no.1. Petitioner no. 4 is the sister
of the petitioner no.1.

5. 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
20.03.2013 and started residing separately.

6. The respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint with CAW Cell which
culminated into said FIR against the petitioners. The respondent No.2
preferred a petition under Section 12 of The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DV
Act’) before the learned MM, Mahila Court, North East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. She had also filed a petition under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the petitioner No.1
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

7. On making a reference by the learned MM, Mahila Court, North East,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, the parties had appeared before the
learned Mediator, Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi. They had resolved and settled all their disputes on 06.06.2016.
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.3,40,000/- to the respondent no. 2 in full and final settlement of
her all claims including the maintenance and cost of dowry/stridhan

W.P. (Crl.) No.1703/2017 Page 2 of 4
articles. The respondent no.2 had also agreed to withdraw her above
said both the petitions.

8. Pursuant to this settlement, at the time of recording the statement of
the parties in the first motion petition, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was
paid by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 2. Further, a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- 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 awarded on 08.02.2017 by
the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, North East
District, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi, by which the marriage between the
petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.2 was dissolved.

9. The respondent No.2 states that she had voluntarily settled and
resolved all disputes with the petitioners without any force and
coercion. She states that she had withdrawn her both petitions under
Section 12 of the D.V. Act and under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

10. Today, the petitioner No.1 has paid the balance settlement amount of
Rs.1,40,000/- vide DD No.277303 dated 08.09.2017 issued by Central
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
to pursue the said FIR. She submits that the said FIR may be
quashed.

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

12. Both the parties submit that now nothing is due and recoverable by
them against each other. Since the parties have amicably settled their

W.P. (Crl.) No.1703/2017 Page 3 of 4
all disputes, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing
the said FIR. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing
No.220/2016, registered on 02.03.2016 with Police Station Khajuri
Khas, North East District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC
and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed.

13. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

14. DASTI.

VINOD GOEL, J.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017/jitender

W.P. (Crl.) No.1703/2017 Page 4 of 4

Leave a Comment

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