Allowed

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Mehta & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Mar 2024CRL.M.C./1984/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed quashing of FIR registered under Sections 498A/406 IPC. The court noted that the parties had amicably settled their matrimonial disputes via a decree of divorce by mutual consent and a subsequent settlement, finding no purpose served by keeping the case pending.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 0071/2018 under Sections 498A/406/323/34 IPC and all proceedings therefrom stand quashed.

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Mehta & Ors. Vs State & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 12.03.2024

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 1984/2024

¶5

SONU KUMAR @ SONU MEHTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv. with petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with SI Sumeet, PS Vivek Vihar. Ms. Bhagwanti Lalwani, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

¶10

% J U D G M E N T

¶11

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)

¶12

CRL.M.A. 7643/2024

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶14

Applications stand disposed of.

¶15

CRL.M.C. 1984/2024

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0071/2018 under Sections 498A/406 IPC registered at P.S.: Vivek Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom. Chargesheet has been filed under Section 498A/406/323/34 IPC.

¶17

Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

CRL.M.C. 1984/2024

¶21

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:1 4.03.2024 14:13:59

¶22

respondent No.2 alongwith respondent No.2 in person appear on advance notice and accept notice.

¶23

In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 25.04.2016. No child was born out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 started living separately since 29.11.2016. On complaint of respondent No.2, present FIR was registered on 21.02.2018.

¶24

The disputes are stated to have been amicably resolved between the parties, in terms of settlement dated 19.07.2023 arrived before Counselling Cell, Family Courts (Shahdara District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide decree dated 18.12.2023.

¶25

Balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac Only) has been paid to respondent No. 2 today through DD No. 000074 dated 06.03.2024 drawn on HDFC Bank, Hisar in favour of respondent No. 2, towards full and final settlement between the parties.

¶26

Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

¶27

Petitioners in the present case seek to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. In which cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute,

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

CRL.M.C. 1984/2024

¶31

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:1 4.03.2024 14:13:59

¶32

would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the society.

¶33

Petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 are present in person and have been identified by SI Sumeet, PS Vivek Vihar. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

¶34

Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. It would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 0071/2018 under Sections 498A/406/323/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Vivek Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.

¶35

Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶36

A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for information.

¶37

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

¶38

MARCH 12, 2024 /akc

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Page 3 of 3

¶41

CRL.M.C. 1984/2024

¶42

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:1 4.03.2024 14:13:59

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Mehta & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Mehta & Ors. v. State & 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

Harish Yadav Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sameer Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ravi Kapoor Vs State NCT of Delhi

Rihan @ Dulare Vs State & Anr.

Sujit Kumar Singh Vs State (Gnct Delhi)

Anand Kumar & Anr. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) Represent through S.H.O. Nihal Vihar, Delhi & Anr.