* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.07.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3287/2018
SUNIL GARG ORS ….. Petitioners
THE STATE ANR ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Bansal, Adv. for
petitioners along with petitioners
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Addl. PP for
the State with SI Ramesh Kumar
Mr. Mohit Gupta, Adv. for complainant
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No. 11900/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of a
typographical error in the petition, the name of the Police Station has
been mentioned as Begum Pur whereas the name of the Police Station
is Sultan Puri. He submits that copy of the FIR has been annexed
CRL.M.C. 3287/2018 Page 1 of 3
which shows the correct name of the Police Station i.e. Sultan Puri.
2. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 483 of 2017 under
Sections 498A/406/323/509/34 of the IPC, Police Station Sultan Puri,
New Delhi, based on a settlement. It is contended that the FIR was
lodged consequent to a matrimonial discord.
3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have
settled their disputes and have amicably dissolved their marriage by
mutual consent and decree of divorce dated 25.05.2018 has been
passed. It is further submitted on behalf of the parties that parties had
entered into the settlement before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini
Courts, New Delhi on 25.09.2017.
4. As per the settlement, a total sum of Rs. 80 lakhs has been
agreed to be paid to respondent no. 2. The said sum of Rs. 80 lakhs
has already been paid to the respondent No.2 in two instalments of Rs.
40 lakhs each at the time of recording of the First Motion as well as
the Second Motion, respectively.
5. It is also stated that one of the co-accused i.e. Shri Dharampal
Gupta has expired on 29.11.2017. His death certificate has been
placed on record.
6. Respondent no. 2 is present in court in person, represented by
her counsel and is identified by the Investigating Officer. She submits
that she has settled the dispute with the petitioner(s) and is agreeable
CRL.M.C. 3287/2018 Page 2 of 3
to the settlement and does not wish to press the criminal charges
against the petitioner(s) any further.
7. In view of the fact that the disputes between the petitioner(s)
and respondent no. 2 emanate out of a matrimonial discord and have
been settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise
in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of
justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to
quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating
8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 483 of
2017 under Sections 498A/406/323/509/34 of the IPC, Police Station
Sultan Puri, New Delhi and the consequent proceedings therefrom are,
9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JULY 04, 2018
CRL.M.C. 3287/2018 Page 3 of 3