Allowed

Romi Kulthia & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC20 Feb 2019CRL.M.C./758/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, arising from disputes under Dowry and Cruelty provisions of IPC, was allowed after the parties settled their differences through an MoU and dissolved their marriage by mutual consent decree. The Court observed that keeping parties entangled in criminal proceedings served no fruitful purpose and quashed the FIR upon payment of the settlement amount.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.178/2017 registered at P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings therefrom are quashed.

Romi Kulthia & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 758/2019

¶4

ROMI KULTHIA & ORS ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Pankaj Arya & Mr. Rohit Mehra, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghai, APP with ASI Devender, PS:Sabzi Mandi, Delhi

¶8

Mr. Dhruv Rajpoot, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 20.02.2019

¶13

CRL.M.A. 3082/2019

¶14

In view of the cause submitted, delay in filing the petition is condoned. Application is disposed of.

¶15

CRL.M.C. 758/2019

¶16

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.178/2017, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟), registered at P.S.: Subzi Mandi, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶17

The petitioners and respondent No.2 as well as their respective counsel submitted that the parties have settled their

¶18

disputes on their own free will, without any force or coercion, vide Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 13.4.2018, in terms whereof the petitioner No.1 had to pay Rs.17,00,000/to the respondent No.2. It is further submitted that out of Rs.17,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide a decree of divorce dated 10.9.2018.

¶19

Respondent No.2, who is present in Court along with her father, has reiterated the aforesaid facts and submitted that she has no objection to the petition being allowed and the FIR being quashed in case the petitioners pay the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to her, which is required to be paid as per the MoU arrived at between the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have brought a Demand Draft bearing No.501092, dated 19.2.2019, drawn on ICICI Bank, for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, which has been handed over to the respondent No.2 today in the Court.

¶21

The Investigating Officer („IO‟), who is present in Court, has identified the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 and has also verified about the MoU arrived at between the parties.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the settlement arrived at between the parties and the dissolution of marriage,

¶23

this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the parties entangled in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, FIR No.178/2017, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S.: Subzi Mandi, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶24

Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶25

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 20, 2019 tp

Romi Kulthia & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Romi Kulthia & Ors. v. State (Govt of 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

Arif Hussain @ Varis Hussain Vs State & Ors.

Kusum Vs State & Anr.

Ravinder @ Ravi & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Vimhans Vs State

Garun Gupta Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Devinder Vs the State & Anr.