$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2520/2017
SUHELVATS ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate with
Mr.Prayas Aneja, Advocate and petitioners in
person.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with
SI Vikas Sahu, P.S. Vikas Puri, Delhi
Mr. Dharmish Thanai, Advocate with Mr. Dinesh
Sharma, Advocate for R-2 along with respondent
No.2 in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

ORDER

% 04.09.2017
Crl.M.A. 14442/2017 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2520/2017

1. Notice. Ld. ASC for State who appears on an advance copy accepts
notice.

2. Notice to respondent no. 2 also. She accompanied by her father is
present in court and accepts notice. She is being represented by her
counsel. She is duly identified by IO Vikas Sahu.

3. The petitioners have invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this court under

W.P. (Crl.) No.2520/2017 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.481/2013, registered on 04.12.2013 against them
with Police Station Vikaspuri, West District, Delhi, under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2.

4. The marriage of the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no. 2 was
solemnized on 31.07.2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
However, out of this wedlock no child was born.

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
31.12.2012 and started residing with her parents.

6. The respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint with CAW Cell which
culminated into said FIR against the petitioners. The petitioner No.1
filed a petition for divorce in the court of learned Principal Judge,
Family Courts, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The respondent No.2 preferred a
complaint under Section 494/120B IPC against the petitioners. She
had also filed 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.

7. On making reference by the learned MM, Mahila Court, West
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the parties had appeared before the
Mediator, Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. They
have resolved and settled all their disputes on 18.11.2016 before the

W.P. (Crl.) No.2520/2017 Page 2 of 4
Ld.Mediator. By that 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.60,00,000/- to the respondent no.
2 in full and final settlement of her all claims including the
maintenance, permanent alimony and cost of dowry/stridhan articles.

8. Pursuant to this settlement, at the time of recording the statement of
the parties in the first motion petition, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was
paid by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 2. Further, a sum of
Rs.40,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2
at the time of recording their statement in the second motion petition.
The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and their counsels submit
that a decree of divorce by mutual consent was awarded on
04.08.2017 by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Courts,
Dwarka, New Delhi by which the marriage between the petitioner no.
1 and the respondent no.2 was dissolved.

9. The respondent No.2 present in the court states that pursuant to the
settlement she had withdrawn her petition under Section 12 of the
D.V. Act from the court of MM, Mahila Court, West District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi and also her complaint u/s 494/120B IPC from
the court of MM, Saket Courts Delhi. The petitioner No.1 submits
that he had withdrawn his petition for divorce from the Court of
Ld.Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

10. Today, the petitioner No.1 has paid the balance settlement amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- vide DD No.201042 dated 04.09.2017 issued by Kotak
Mahindra Bank Limited, New Delhi to respondent No.2. The

W.P. (Crl.) No.2520/2017 Page 3 of 4
petitioner No.1 has also delivered another draft of Rs.30,000/- to
respondent being the amount of outstanding maintenance. The
respondent No.2 states that she has voluntarily settled and resolved all
disputes voluntarily with the petitioners without any force and
coercion. She further 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. Both the parties submit that now nothing is due and recoverable by
them against each other. The matter had been amicably settled
between the parties and no purpose would be served in further
pursuing the said FIR. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR
bearing No.481/2013, registered on 04.12.2013 against the petitioners
with Police Station Vikaspuri, West 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 04, 2017
“sandeep”

W.P. (Crl.) No.2520/2017 Page 4 of 4