Quashed

Darshan Chauhan v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC17 Jan 2018W.P.(CRL)/3582/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC. The parties, who had divorced by mutual consent, had settled all disputes financially. An agreement was also reached regarding visitation rights for their minor child.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 856/2015 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Shalimar Bagh and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Darshan Chauhan Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr. — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 3582/2017 DARSHAN CHAUHAN

¶4

..... Petitioner Through: Ms Shashi Bala, Adv for petitioner No. 1

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

¶7

..... Respondents Through: Mr Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State with SI Vipin Shokeen Mr Hanish Sharawat, Adv for R-2

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 17.01.2018

¶11

The amended memo of parties is on record. Petitioner seeks quashing of the present FIR. The FIR No. 856/2015 was registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Shalimar Bagh on the complaint of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is present. Petitioner No. 1 is also present. Parties have settled their disputes. The parties who had been married in the year 1997 have now been divorced by decree of mutual consent; the divorce decree was passed in November 2017 dissolving the marriage inter se the parties. In terms of the settlement arrived at inter se the parties, petitioner No. 1 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in full and final settlement of all the claims to respondent No. 2 of which Rs. 3 lakh already stands paid and a sum of Rs 2 lakh is being paid today in the court. Parties

¶12

have one child aged about 12 years who is in the custody of petitioner No. 1. Learned counsels for the parties admit that due to inadvertence in the settlement, the visitation rights which the respondent No. 2 seeks have not been mentioned. Parties agree that the child of the parties (presently in the custody of petitioner No. 1) shall be permitted to visit his mother i.e., respondent No. 2 on every second Saturday of the month. Since respondent No. 2 is a school teacher she prays that second Saturday shall be feasible to her and the time of visit may be fixed at about 3 pm for about 1-2 hours. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 shall inter se agree on the place on a telephonic arrangement and the aforenoted visit of the child shall be afforded by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2.

¶13

The aforenoted settlement being arrived at inter se the parties, this is fit case to quash the FIR. To secure the ends of justice, the FIR No. 856/2015 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC PS Shalimar Bagh and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶14

Petition disposed of.

¶15

Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶16

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶17

JANUARY 17, 2018 SU

Darshan Chauhan v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Chauhan v. State (Nct of Delhi) & 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

Mayank @ Mannu & Anr. Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Vivian Khoiwal Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Manish Bajaj & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bikramjeet Singh Sokhi Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Zafar-Ul-Islam Vs State

Prem Singh Vs State

Mohd Adil Vs State ( NCT of Delhi ) & Ors.

Shahnawaz @ Shalu & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rakesh Vs State NCT of Delhi

Mayank @ Mannu & Anr. Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Virender Vs Stater (Govt of Nct, Delhi)

Ranjeet Vs State

Narender @ Nanda Vs State

Shyamveer & Ors. Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi 0 and Others