Sourabh Sharma & Ors vs State & Anr. on 18 September, 2017

$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1507/2017
SOURABH SHARMA ORS ….. Petitioners
Through: Ms.Tanya Mahajan, Advocate with
petitioners in person.

versus

STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC for State with
SI Anju Tyagi, PS Hari Nagar, Delhi.
Ms.Sumedha Arya, Advocate for R-2 along with
respondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

ORDER

% 18.09.2017

1. Respondent no. 2 is present in person. She is being represented by
her counsel. She is duly identified by IO SI Anju Tyagi.

2. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under
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.1174/2015, registered on 22.08.2015 against them
with Police Station Hari Nagar, West District, Delhi, under Sections
498A/406/354/354(A)/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2.

3. The marriage of the petitioner no.1 with the respondent no. 2 was
solemnized on 21.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi.
However, out of this wedlock no child was born.

4. The petitioner no.2 is the father of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner

W.P. (Crl.) No.1507/2017 Page 1 of 4
no.3 is the mother of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner No.4 is the
brother 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
01.07.2015 and started residing separately.

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

7. On making a reference in bail application by this Court, the petitioner
no.1 and respondent no.2 had appeared before the Delhi High Court
Mediation and Conciliation Centre. On 30th August, 2016, they had
resolved and settled all their disputes before the Ld. Mediator. 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.4,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 in full and final settlement of her
all claims including the maintenance and cost of dowry/stridhan
articles. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 had agreed that they
shall exchange articles/jewellery articles with each other as mentioned
in Annexure-A and Annexure-B.

8. Pursuant to this settlement, Rs.1 lac was paid by the petitioner no.1 to
the respondent no.2 at the time of disposal of the bail application by
this Court. 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

W.P. (Crl.) No.1507/2017 Page 2 of 4
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 granted on 20.04.2017 by the court of
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West, Tis Hazari Courts,
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. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 submit that they had
exchanged articles/jewellery articles with each other as mentioned in
Annexure-A and Annexure-B.

10. Today, the petitioner No.1 has paid the balance settlement amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- vide DD No.295667 dated 07.09.2017 issued by South
Indian Bank, 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 all
their disputes, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing
the said FIR. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing
No.1174/2015, registered on 22.08.2015 with Police Station Hari
Nagar, West District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/354/354(A)/34

W.P. (Crl.) No.1507/2017 Page 3 of 4
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 18, 2017/jitender

W.P. (Crl.) No.1507/2017 Page 4 of 4

Leave a Comment

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