Petitioner sought quashing of FIR arising from matrimonial dispute. Court noted settlement between respondents and parties. Order quashed FIR and proceedings as settlement was amicably arrived and no legal impediment exists.
FIR No. 292/2017 under Sections 354(D) and 66C of IT Act and proceedings pursuant thereto 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.
$~2
Represented by: Mr. Ritesh Oberoi, Advocate.
versus
| THE STATE & ANR | ..... Respondent |
|---|---|
| Represented by: | Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for the State with Mr. Anuj Jain and Mr. Jamal Akhtar, |
| Advocates with SI Suresh | |
| Ahlawat, PS Moti Nagar. | |
| Ms. Sakshi Bhayana, Advocate for respondent No. 2. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 12.04.2018
By the present petition the petitioner seek quashing of FIR No. 292/2017 under Sections 354 (D) and Section 66C of the Information Technology Act 2000 registered at PS Moti 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 Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that in the above noted FIR is an offshoot of matrimonial dispute between respondent No. 2 and brother of petitioner, namely, Rohit Chopra. Rohit Chopra and respondent No. 2 have holistically settled the matter and in terms of settlement divorce by mutual consent has been granted between his brother and respondent No. 2. He further states that the petitioner is the only accused and W.P.(CRL) 212/2018 page 1 of 2
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 Rohit Chopra her ex-husband and all his family members including the petitioner herein who is her ex-brother-in-law. She further states that she does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
Petitioner who is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel affirms the statement of respondent No.2 and undertake 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 question.
Consequently, FIR No. 292/2017 under Sections 354 (D) and Section 66C of the Information Technology Act 2000 registered at PS Moti 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. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
APRIL 12, 2018 ‘yo’ W.P.(CRL) 212/2018
page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 292/2017 registering offences under Sections 354(D) and 66C of IT Act should be quashed when parties have settled the matrimonial dispute.
Whether continuation of proceedings after settlement serves any useful purpose or would create further acrimony.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PIYUSH CHOPRA
THE STATE
ANR
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
