$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1029/2017
SATISH KUMAR ORS ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate with
petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ANR ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State
with SI Ved Parkash, P.S SB Dairy, Delhi.
Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, proxy for respondent
No.2 with respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER
% 13.09.2017
1. Status report has been filed.
2. Respondent no. 2 appears in person and accepts notice. She is being
represented by her counsel. She is duly identified by IO SI Ved
Parkash.
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.632/2014, registered against them on 04.06.2014 with
Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Outer 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 16.02.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi.
W.P. (Crl). No.1029 /2017 Page 1 of 3
After the solemnization of marriage, the couple started residing at the
matrimonial home. Out of this wedlock, one female child was born.
5. Due to some temperamental differences between them, they could not
reconcile with each other. Resultantly, the respondent no.2 left the
matrimonial home on 16.10.2013 along with her child.
6. The respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint in CAW Cell which
culminated into the said FIR. The petitioner No.1 filed a petition
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce against
the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 preferred a petition under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Courts,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
7. Subsequently the petitioners and respondent No.2. had amicably
resolved and settled all their disputes. The petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 had decided to reside together peacefully. They also
agreed to withdraw their respective petitions filed by them.
8. Pursuant to the settlement, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2
submits that they had withdrawn their respective petitions. They
submit that they have been residing together peacefully since
21.09.2016. They submit that now they do not have any dispute or
problem with each other.
9. The respondent No.2 submits that in view of the settlement she does
not want to pursue the said FIR. She submits that the said FIR may be
quashed.
10. Learned APP through the IO submits that the charge sheet has so far
not been filed.
11. Since the parties have amicably settled all their disputes, no fruitful
W.P. (Crl). No.1029 /2017 Page 2 of 3
purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, to
secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing No.632/2014, registered
against them on 04.06.2014 with Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Outer
District, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and proceedings
arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed.
12. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
13. DASTI.
VINOD GOEL, J.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
“sandeep”
W.P. (Crl). No.1029 /2017 Page 3 of 3
