SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vimal Kumar & Ors vs The State & Anr. on 19 September, 2017

+ W.P.(CRL) 1707/2017
VIMAL KUMAR ORS ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ankit Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Isha
Agarwal, Adv. with petitioners in person.


THE STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms.Kamna Vohar, ASC for State with
SI Gajender Singh, PS Mahendra Park, Delhi.
Mr.Pankaj Mehta, Adv. with Mr.R.K. Mehta,
Mr.Parmod Kalirana and Ms.Shweta Soni, Advs.
for R-2 along with respondent no. 2 in person.


% 19.09.2017

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

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.0197/2016, registered on 02.04.2016 against them
with Police Station Mahendra Park, North West District, Delhi, under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2.

3. The marriage of the petitioner no.1 with the respondent no. 2 was
solemnized on 27.11.2014 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi.
However, out of this wedlock no child was born.

W.P. (Crl.) No.1707/2017 Page 1 of 4

4. The petitioner no.2 is the father of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner
no.3 is the mother 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
25.07.2015 and started residing separately.

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

7. The respondent No.2 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, Rohini 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, Rohini, Delhi.

8. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 had resolved and settled all
their disputes in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 10th
July, 2016. 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.11,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 in full and final
settlement of her all claims including the maintenance and cost of
dowry/stridhan articles.

9. Pursuant to this settlement, Rs.1 lac was paid by the petitioner no.1 to
the respondent no.2 at the time of recording the statement of the

W.P. (Crl.) No.1707/2017 Page 2 of 4
parties in the first motion petition. Further, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
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 08.05.2017 by the court of
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District North, Rohini Courts,
Delhi, by which the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the
respondent no.2 was dissolved.

10. The respondent No.2 states that she had voluntarily settled and
resolved all disputes with the petitioners without any force and
coercion. The respondent no. 2 submits that she had withdrawn both
her respective petitions.

11. Today, the petitioner No.1 has paid the balance settlement amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- vide DD No.077875 dated 14.09.2017 issued by Indian
Overseas 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.

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

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.0197/2016, registered on 02.04.2016 with Police Station
Mahendra Park, North West District, Delhi, under Sections

W.P. (Crl.) No.1707/2017 Page 3 of 4
498A/406/34 IPC and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are
hereby quashed.

14. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

15. DASTI.


SEPTEMBER 19, 2017/jitender

W.P. (Crl.) No.1707/2017 Page 4 of 4

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation