The court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and associated proceedings, relying on a valid compromise deed and divorce decree where the parties settled all claims amicably without coercion.
FIR No. 208/2017 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and 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.
$~60
JITENDER BIRMANI & ORS ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Pratyush Chirantan and Mr. Abhishek Bajpai, Advocates. Petitioners in person.
versus THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC for the State with SI Prem Raj, PS Vijay Vihar. R-2 in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 22.03.2018
Crl.M.A. No. 5411/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 864/2018
By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 208/2017 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Vijay 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 Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that in the above noted FIR the six petitioners are the only accused and the respondent No.2 is the only complainant/ victim. W.P.(CRL) 864/2018 page 1 of 3
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 vide the Compromise Deed dated 15th April, 2017 copy of which is placed on record at pages 33 to 39 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 ₹9 lakhs to respondent No.2 out of which she has already received a sum of ₹7 lakhs and the balance amount of ₹2 lakhs has been received by her today in Court vide Demand Draft No. 079125 drawn on HDFC 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 vide the Compromise Deed dated 15th April, 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) 864/2018
page 2 of 3
Consequently, FIR No. 208/2017 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Vijay 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.
MARCH 22, 2018 ‘yo’
page 3 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 864/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and subsequent proceedings should be quashed upon settlement of the matter by the parties.
Whether a compromise deed signed by parties in a matrimonial dispute bars the continuation of criminal proceedings initiated by the same parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
JITENDER BIRMANI & ORS
THE STATE
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
