Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on grounds of settlement. The High Court noted the divorce decree and payment of settlement money, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings to avoid acrimony.
FIR No. 277/2016 and proceedings pursuant thereto are 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.
$~41
ASHISH SHAKUNIYA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Manan Batra, Adv versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Jyoti Babbar for Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State with SI Rahul Singh, PS Pandav Nagar Mr. Govind Srivastav & Mr. Asad Ullah, Advs for R-2 with R-2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 18.09.2018
By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 277/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Pandav Nagar, 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 appearing for the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that in the above noted FIR the four petitioners are the only accused and the respondent No.2 is the only complainant/ victim.
Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel and Investigating Officer states that she has settled the matter with the Petitioners in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated
W.P.(CRL) 2095/2018
P-1/3
4th January, 2017, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 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 ₹3 lakhs to respondent No.2 out of which she has already received a sum of ₹2 lakhs and the balance amount of ₹1 lakh has been received by her today in Court vide Demand Draft No. 054566 drawn on Canara Bank. 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.
Petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statement of respondent No.2 and undertake to abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 4th January, 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.
W.P.(CRL) 2095/2018
P-2/3
Consequently, FIR No. 277/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Pandav Nagar, 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. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous. Order dasti .
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
‘seema’
W.P.(CRL) 2095/2018
P-3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash FIR No. 277/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC given the settlement between parties.
Whether continuation of proceedings would serve any useful purpose after settlement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ASHISH SHAKUNIYA
STATE & ANR
Respondent No.2
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
