Allowed

Abhishek Satyam and Ors. v. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Anr. & Anr.

Delhi HC17 May 2024CRL.M.C./1762/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR under IPC Sections 498A, 406, and 34 registered in a matrimonial dispute. The court noted a settlement was reached and fully complied with, including a divorce decree and monetary compensation payment, allowing the petition in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 105/2022 under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC is quashed and the petition is allowed.

Abhishek Satyam and Ors. Vs the State (N.C.T. of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1762/2024 & CRL.M.A. 6757/2024 (exemption)

¶4

ABHISHEK SATYAM AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate alongwith petitioners in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) AND ANR & ANR.Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State. SI Archana, PS Delhi Cantt. Mr. Badal Dayal, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶8

O R D E R % 17.05.2024

¶9

The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the FIR No. 105/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Delhi Cantt.

¶10

The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 10.02.2019 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

¶11

No child was born out of the said wedlock.

¶12

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately from 03.09.2021. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged an FIR against petitioner no.1 (husband), petitioner no. 2 (father-in-law) and petitioner no. 3 (motherin-law).

¶13

On 22.12.2022, the parties arrived at a settlement before Delhi

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 27/05/2024 at 12:42:46

¶16

Mediation Centre, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, and as per the said settlement deed, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the respondent no.2/wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims including istridhan , permanent alimony and maintenance - present, past and future. The copy of the aforesaid settlement deed dated 22.12.2022 is on record (Annexure P-2).

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 03.05.2024. Certified copy of the same is not available and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 confirms the said fact. Further, as per the settlement deed, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been paid to her in court today, by means of a demand draft.

¶18

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, S.I. Archana, P.S: Delhi Cantt. 8. A demand draft bearing no. 917282 dated 14.05.2024 for Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on IDFC Bank, Kalyan Nagar Branch, has been handed over to the complainant/Respondent No.2, who acknowledges the receipt of the same.

¶19

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.

¶20

Learned APP for the State submits that investigation in the present

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 27/05/2024 at 12:42:46

¶23

FIR is not complete and chargesheet has not been filed. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶24

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:-

¶25

“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.”

¶26

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. 105/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Delhi Cantt.

¶27

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 105/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Delhi Cantt., is hereby quashed.

¶28

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶29

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

¶30

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶31

MAY 17, 2024 /sn

¶32

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶33

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 27/05/2024 at 12:42:46

Abhishek Satyam and Ors. v. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Anr. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Satyam and Ors. v. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Anr. & 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

Parwez Alam & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sushil Panwar Vs Ashwani Panwar

Afsar Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Ravinder Mittal Vs Aradhana & Anr.

Ajit Gogna Vs the Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs State