The High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC and consequent proceedings after finding that the parties had settled the matrimonial dispute via mutual consent divorce and full financial settlement at the High Court Mediation Centre.
FIR No. 1118/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC 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.
$~55
| + W.P.(CRL) 916/2018 |
|
|---|---|
| HARI RAM & ORS | ..... Petitioner |
| Represented by: | Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advocate. Petitioners in person. |
| versus | |
| STATE & ORS Represented by: |
..... Respondent Mr. Siddharth Sindhu, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC for the State with ASI Heera Lal, PS Nihal Vihar. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate |
| for R-2. R-2 in person. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
| O R D E R % 02.04.2018 |
|---|
| Crl.M.A. No. 5705/2018 (Exemption) |
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 916/2018
By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 1118/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Nihal 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 proxy counsel for the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that in the above noted FIR charge sheet W.P.(CRL) 916/2018 page 1 of 3
has been filed against all the petitioners and the seven 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 Investigating Officer states that she has settled the matter with the petitioners before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 14th November, 2017, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-P2 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 ₹1,40,000/- to respondent No.2 out of which she has already received a sum of ₹ 90,000/- and the balance amount of ₹50,000/- has been received by her today in Court vide Demand Draft No. 320278 drawn on Indusland 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 before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 14th November, 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 W.P.(CRL) 916/2018 page 2 of 3
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. 1118/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Nihal 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.
APRIL 02, 2018 ‘yo’
page 3 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 916/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR and proceedings should be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties regarding divorce and maintenance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HARI RAM & ORS
STATE & ORS
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
