The High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC and related proceedings because the parties reached a final settlement via mediation, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent, and no further claims remained between them.
FIR No. 462/2016 and all proceedings pursuant thereto were quashed.
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.
$~10
| + W.P.(CRL) 1678/ |
2018 | |
|---|---|---|
| SACHIN & OTH | ERS | ..... Petitioner |
| Represented by: versus |
Mr. Vaibhav Singh and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocates. |
|
| STATE & ANR | Represented by: | ..... Respondent Mr. Ashish Negi, Advocate for Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC for the |
| State with ASI Dinesh Tyagi, PS Mayur Vihar. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 04.07.2018
Crl.M.A. No. 10413/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 1678/2018
By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 462/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Mayur Vihar, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No. 2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.
Learned proxy counsel for learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that in the above noted FIR the seven petitioners are the only accused and the respondent No.2 is the only complainant/ victim.
W.P.(CRL) 1678/2018 page 1 of 3
Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer states that she has settled the matter with the petitioners before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 12th July, 2017, copy whereof is at pages 34 to 37 of the paper book. In terms of the settlement marriage between the petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2/complainant has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. As full and final settlement of all the claims, that is, maintenance, streedhan and alimony etc. of the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner No.1 has to pay a sum of ₹4,50,000/- to respondent No.2 out of which she has already received a sum of ₹3,00,000/- and the balance amount of ₹1,50,000/- has been received by her today in Court vide Demand Draft No. 503996 drawn on State Bank of India dated 25th April, 2018. She further states that she has no claim whatsoever remaining against the petitioners. In terms of the settlement she does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. She further undertakes to abide by the terms of settlement.
Petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statement of respondent No.2 and undertakes to abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties.
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 W.P.(CRL) 1678/2018 page 2 of 3
question.
Consequently, FIR No. 462/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Mayur Vihar, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 04, 2018 ‘yo’
page 3 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 1678/2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC should be quashed upon a final settlement between the parties and dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.
Whether a final settlement dispenses with the need for continuing criminal proceedings in a family dispute.
Whether the settlement was arrived at without coercion and in the interest of justice.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sachin & Others
State & Anr
Richa Kapoor
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
