Quashed
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Delhi HCCRL.M.C./403/2017
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C.…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~25
DINESH KUMAR & ORS.
..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advs.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APPO with SI Ramakant PS Sarai Rohilla. Mr. Rajan Bhatia, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 01.02.2017
By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 373/2005 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.
Learned APP for the State on instructions from Investigating Officer submits that in the above-noted FIR the six petitioners are the only accused and respondent No.2 the only complainant/ victim.
Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. She states that she has settled the matter with the petitioners during the conciliation proceedings carried out CRL.M.C. 403/2017 page 1 of 3
before the family Court on 21st August, 2015. In terms of the settlement divorce by mutual consent has been granted between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. From the wedlock of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 two minor sons namely Hari Om @ Anshul and Narain @ Rishab were born who would remain in the care and custody of the respondent No.2 and the petitioners would neither have custody nor the visiting rights of the said children. In lieu of all her claims of maintenance, istridhan, alimony and the maintenance of the two children till they attain the age of majority, the respondent No.2 is entitled to receive a sum of ₹16,50,000/- out of which she has already received a sum of ₹12, lakhs and the balance amount of ₹4,50,000/- has been received by her today in Court by way of six demand drafts and cash i.e. (i) No. ‘681121’ for ₹1,20,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, (ii) No. ‘681138’ for ₹ 1 lakh drawn on Canara Bank, (iii) No. ‘681123’ for ₹1 lakh drawn on Canara Bank, (iv) ‘343467’ for ₹19,990/- drawn on PNB, (v) No. ‘343482’ for ₹19,990/- drawn on PNB, (vi) No. ‘343472’ for ₹19,990/- drawn on PNB and (vii) ₹70,030/- in cash. She states that she has no claim whatsoever remaining against the petitioners and does not wish to pursue the above-noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
The petitioners who are present in Court affirm the statement of respondent No.2 and state that they will abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties on 21st August, 2015 in HMA No.1318/14 titled as ‘ Sudha Kumari Vs. Dinesh Kumar ’.
page 2 of 3
CRL.M.C. 403/2017
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.
Consequently, FIR No. 373/2005 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
The petition and application are disposed of. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
FEBRUARY 01, 2017 ‘ga’
page 3 of 3
CRL.M.C. 403/2017
DINESH KUMAR & ORS.
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
SUDHA KUMARI
MUKTA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court