Allowed

Naseem @ Sonu v. the State & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Jan 2018CRL.M.C./250/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC alleging matrimonial discord. The court noted the parties had settled disputes, dissolved their marriage, and paid agreed compensation. Finding continuation of proceedings futile, the court quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 574 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC and consequent proceedings were quashed.

Naseem @ Sonu Vs the State & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 250/2018

¶4

NASEEM @ SONU ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Addl. PP for the State W/ASI Neeraj Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Adv. for R- 2 with R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R

¶10

% 18.01.2018 Crl. M.A. 975/2018 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 250/2018

¶13

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 574 of 2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC Police Station Dwarka, Delhi. It is contended that the FIR was lodged consequent to a matrimonial discord.

¶14

Learned counsels for the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 submit that the parties have settled their disputes and the parties have amicably dissolved their marriage. A sum of Rs. 2 lakhs has been agreed to be paid to respondent no. 2. A sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs has earlier been paid and the balance sum of Rs. 50,000/- (in cash) has been paid to respondent no. 2 today in the Court.

¶15

CRL.M.C. 250/2018

¶16

Page 1

¶17

Respondent no. 2 is present in court in person represented by her counsel and is identified by the Investigating Officer. She submits that she has settled the dispute with the petitioner and is agreeable to the settlement and does not wish to press the criminal complaint against the petitioner any further. It is further submitted on behalf of the parties that parties have entered into a settlement before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, Delhi and the Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2014 has been executed.

¶18

In view of the fact that the disputes between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 emanate out of a matrimonial discord and have been settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶19

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 574 of 2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC Police Station Dwarka, Delhi and the consequent proceedings therefrom are, accordingly quashed.

¶20

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶21

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶22

JANUARY 18, 2018 ‘ rs’

¶23

CRL.M.C. 250/2018

¶24

Page 2

Naseem @ Sonu v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseem @ Sonu v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabha Tandon & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Juhi Kumari Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Rinku Das Vs State Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Braham Prakash Deswal & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Rajnish Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Sheeshpal @ Luv Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.