Quashed

Manik Sharma & Ors. v. the State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC21 Feb 2024CRL.M.C./1427/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Delhi High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The court relied on a settlement reached between the parties and a subsequent divorce decree, citing Gian Singh to hold that continuing proceedings would be contrary to the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 331/2020 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the pending chargesheet.

Manik Sharma & Ors. Vs the State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~67

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1427/2024

¶4

MANIK SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate alongwith petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Vinay, P.S. Laxmi Nagar.

¶9

Mr. Jitender Khullar & Mr. Shahrukh, Advocates for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 21.02.2024 CRL.M.A. 5642/2024 (Exemption)

¶14

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶15

The application is accordingly disposed of.

¶16

CRL.M.C. 1427/2024

¶17

The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 331/2020, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Laxmi Nagar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the Court of Ms. Rishika Srivastava, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

¶18

The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 14.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

¶19

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/02/2024 at 15:17:25

¶20

No child was born out of the said wedlock.

¶21

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately from 24.08.2015. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged an FIR against petitioner no.1 (husband), petitioner no. 2 (mother-in-law) and petitioner no. 3 (fatherin-law).

¶22

On 21.09.2023, parties arrived at a settlement before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, pursuant to which respondent no. 2/complainant has no objection to quashing of the present FIR. The copy of the aforesaid settlement dated 21.09.2023 is on record (Annexure P-2).

¶23

In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 20.01.2024, passed by Shri Ravinder Singh-01, Judge, Family Court-02, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-3).

¶24

Petitioners and complainant/respondent no. 2 are present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel, as well as the Investigating Officer, SI Vinay, P.S. Laxmi Nagar.

¶25

The complainant/respondent no.2 states that the matter has been settled with the petitioners and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. She further states that all the terms of the agreement have been complied with.

¶26

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶27

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-

¶28

¶29

“61. ... In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶30

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and the fact that the parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 331/2020, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Laxmi Nagar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the Court of Ms. Rishika Srivastava, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

¶31

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 331/2020, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Laxmi Nagar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the Court of Ms. Rishika Srivastava, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, is hereby quashed.

¶32

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶33

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶35

FEBRUARY 21, 2024/bsr

¶36

Manik Sharma & Ors. v. the State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Sharma & Ors. v. the State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanak Chand Sharma Vs the State

Jamal Ranjha Vs State Govt.of NCT of Delhi

Pradyumna Pujari & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Yogesh @ Sonu Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Hem Goyal Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.