Siddhartha Jain & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 13 October, 2017

$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2886/2017
SIDDHARTHA JAIN ORS ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pradeep Bhardwaj, Adv.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC with Mr. Prem
Sagar and Mr. Bhagat Singh, Advs.
with W/SI Roshni, P.S. CAW Cell,
Nanak Pura
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER

% 13.10.2017
CRL. M.A. 16766/2017 (Exemption)
Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2886/2017

1. Notice.

2. Ld. Additional Standing Counsel Mr. R.S. Kundu accepts notice. Mr.
Kundu through IO submits that the charge sheet has not been filed.

3. Notice be issued to the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is present
in person and accepts notice. She is duly identified by the IO W/SI
Roshni.

4. 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

W.P. (Crl.) No.2886/2017 Page 1 of 4
the FIR bearing No.28/2016, registered against them on 09.03.2016
under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC with Police Station Crime (Women)
Cell, Nanak Pura, New Delhi on the complaint of respondent No. 2.

5. The marriage of the petitioner no. 1 with the respondent no. 2 was
solemnized on 07.07.2011 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi.
However, out of this wedlock, no child was born.

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
14.12.2014 and started residing separately with her parents.

7. The respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner no. 1
before the CAW Cell which culminated into the said FIR. She
preferred a petition under Section 12 of The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DV
Act’) against the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 has also filed a
petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘HMA’). The
petitioner No. 1 filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty
against the respondent No. 2 under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955.

8. On 19.12.2016, the parties had amicably resolved and settled all their
disputes. The settlement/compromise was reduced to writing. By this
settlement, the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 had decided to part
company of each other and obtain a decree of divorce by mutual
consent from the competent Court. The petitioner had also agreed to

W.P. (Crl.) No.2886/2017 Page 2 of 4
pay a total sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 in full and
final settlement of her all claims, which includes maintenance,
permanent alimony and costs of dowry and stridhan articles. Both the
parties have also agreed to withdraw their respective petitions from
the Courts.

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

10. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 had paid a sum of Rs.1.25
crores to the respondent No. 2 at the time of recording the statement
of the parties in the first motion before the Court of learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Saket(South), New Delhi. Further, a sum of
Rs.75 lakhs was paid by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2 at the
time of recording the statement of parties in the second motion before
the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket(South),
New Delhi. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted on
01.08.2017 by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Saket(South), New Delhi, by which the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent no. 2 was dissolved. Respondent No. 2
states that she had withdrawn her petition under Section 9 of HMA,
1955. She submits that she had also withdrawn her petition under
Section 12 of DV Act. The petitioner also submits that he had
withdrawn his petition for divorce filed on the ground of cruelty
against the respondent No. 2.

11. Today, the petitioner No. 1 has handed over demand draft No. 211130
dated 08.09.2017 issued by YES Bank, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi to

W.P. (Crl.) No.2886/2017 Page 3 of 4
respondent No. 2 for Rs.50 lakhs which has been accepted by
respondent No. 2.

12. The respondent no. 2 submits that she has received the entire
settlement amount from the petitioners. She submits that in view of
the settlement, she does not want to pursue the said FIR and submits
that the said FIR may be quashed.

13. 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.28/2016, registered on 09.03.2016 with Police Station, Crime
(Women) Cell, Nanak Pura, New Delhi under Sections 498A/406/506
IPC and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR are
hereby quashed.

14. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

15. DASTI.

VINOD GOEL, J.

OCTOBER 09, 2017
P

W.P. (Crl.) No.2886/2017 Page 4 of 4

Leave a Comment

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