Allowed

Jai Prakash & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2024CRL.M.C./296/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and pending chargesheet proceedings after the parties arrived at a full and final settlement before the Delhi Mediation Centre. The petitioner paid the agreed amount, the marriage was dissolved, and the complainant raised no objection to the quashing.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 494/2018 and consequential proceedings quashed.

Jai Prakash & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 296/2024

¶4

JAI PRAKASH & ORS. ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Pradeep K. Mr, Rajkumar Maurya & Mr. Anand Mishra, Advocates alongwith petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Akansh Sharma & SI Gajender, P.S. Mahendra Park. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R % 02.02.2024

¶11

The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 494/2018, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Mahendra Park and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the Court of Ms. Nidhi Chitkara, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

¶12

The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 20.04.2017 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

¶13

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 02/07/2025 at 09:12:24

¶14

No child was born out of the said wedlock.

¶15

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately from 08.12.2017. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged an FIR against petitioner no.1 (husband), petitioner no. 2 (brother-in-law), petitioner no. 3 (brother-inlaw), petitioner no. 4(sister-in-law) and petitioner no. 5 (sister-in-law).

¶16

On 07.03.2023, parties arrived at a settlement before Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi and as per the said settlement, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,60,000/- 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 dated 07.03.2023 is on record (Annexure P-2).

¶17

In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 21.10.2023, passed by Ms. Nivedita Anil Sharma, Principal Judge, Family Court, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-4). Further, as per the settlement deed, an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- 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, SI Akansh Sharma, P.S. Mahendra Park.

¶19

A demand draft bearing no. 018731, dated 29.01.2024, for Rs. 1,60,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Dilshad Colony, New Delhi, has been handed over to the complainant/Respondent No.2, who acknowledges the

¶20

¶21

receipt of the same.

¶22

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.

¶23

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 10. 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:-

¶24

“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.”

¶25

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. 494/2018, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Mahendra Park and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Nidhi Chitkara, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

¶26

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 494/2018, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Mahendra Park and all other consequential proceedings emanating

¶27

¶28

therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the Court of Ms. Nidhi Chitkara, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, Rohini Courts, Delhi, is hereby quashed.

¶29

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶30

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

¶31

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶32

FEBRUARY 2, 2024/bsr

¶33

Jai Prakash & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash & Ors. v. State 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shikha Solanki and Anr. Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Arpit Jain Vs Priyanka Jain

R.B. Mathur & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Yuvraj Jain Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Rajinder @ Jinder Vs State (Nct of Delhi)