Vikas Kumar & Ors. vs The State & Anr. on 25 September, 2017

$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1753/2017
VIKAS KUMAR ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: All petitioners in person.

versus

THE STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC for the State
with SI Vikrant, PS Seema Puri, Delhi.
Mr. RPS Bhatti, Advocate for R-2 with respondent
No.2 in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER

% 25.09.2017
Crl.M.A. 9651/2017 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 1753/2017

1. Status report has been filed.

2. Respondent No.2 appears in person. She is being represented by her
counsel. She is duly identified by IO Vikrant.

3. The petitioners submit that their counsel is not available today on
account of being unwell. They submit that they have come all the way
from District Sitamarhi, Bihar, hence their petition may be
considered.

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

W.P. (Crl.) No.1753/2017 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.1371/2015, registered against them on 28.09.2015
with Police Station Seemapuri, District North East, Delhi, under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2.

5. The marriage of the petitioner no.1 with the respondent no. 2 was
solemnized on 08.06.2011 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
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
25.06.2012 and started residing separately.

7. The respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners 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 in the court of learned MM, Mahila Court,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. She also filed a petition u/s 125 of
Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the petitioner No.1 before the learned
Principal Judge, Family Courts, Karkardooma, Delhi.

8. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 had amicably resolved and
settled all their disputes before the learned Principal Counsellor
attached to the Family Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi. By this settlement, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.

W.P. (Crl.) No.1753/2017 Page 2 of 4

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.1,50,000/- to the respondent no. 2 in full and final
settlement of all her claims, which includes maintenance and costs of
dowry and stridhan articles. The petitioner No.1 had also agreed to
return gold chain and gold ring to the respondent No.2. The
respondent no. 2 had agreed to withdraw both her petitions.

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. Pursuant to the settlement, respondent no. 2 submits that she had
withdrawn both her petitions. It is submitted that at the time of filing
the first motion petition, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid by the
petitioner to the respondent No.2. At the time of recording the
statement of the parties in the first motion petition, further a sum of
Rs.50,000/- was paid by the petitioner no.1 to the respondent no.2. At
the time of recording the statement of the parties in the second motion
petition, Rs.50,000/- was paid by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent
No.2. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted on
23.02.2017 by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Shahdara, Delhi, by which the marriage between the petitioner no. 1
and the respondent no.2 was dissolved.

11. Today, the petitioner No.1 has paid the balance settlement amount of
Rs.25,000/- by cash to the respondent No.2.

12. The respondent No.2 submits that she has received the entire
settlement amount from the petitioner No.1. She submits that she had

W.P. (Crl.) No.1753/2017 Page 3 of 4
already received the gold chain and gold ring 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.

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

14. 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.1371/2015, registered on 28.09.2015 with Police Station
Seemapuri Puri, District North East, Delhi, under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are
hereby quashed.

15. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

16. DASTI.

VINOD GOEL, J.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017
“sandeep”

W.P. (Crl.) No.1753/2017 Page 4 of 4

Leave a Comment

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