Allowed

Neeraj & Ors. v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC4 Jan 2024CRL.M.C./49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings registered under Sections 354/354(A)/509/377 IPC following a settlement between the petitioner husband and the complainant wife, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Gian Singh regarding amicable resolution of disputes.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 587/2022 under Sections 354/354(A)/509/377 IPC and all consequential proceedings quashed.

Neeraj & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 49/2024 & CRL.M.A. 197/2024 (Exemption) NEERAJ & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Advocate alongwith petitioners in person.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State with Mohd. Asif, Advocate. SI Aarti, PS Bhalswa Dairy. Ms. Kamakshi Garg, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶7

O R D E R % 04.01.2024

¶8

The present writ petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeks quashing of FIR No. 587/2022, under Sections 354/354(A)/509/377 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Bhalswa Dairy and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the Court of Ms. Preeti, Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-01), North District, Rohini Court, Delhi.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the dispute in the present FIR is matrimonial in nature inasmuch as petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are married. The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 24.04.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs and one son was born out of the said wedlock.

¶10

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 06/05/2024 at 15:00:19

¶11

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the latter left her matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant registered an FIR against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the parties have now settled their disputes with the intervention of elders and other well wishers vide memorandum of understanding dated 07.06.2023. The copy of the aforesaid compromise deed dated 07.06.2023 is on record (Annexure P-2). It is further stated that the parties living together, at their matrimonial home, since 01.06.2023, alongwith their minor son.

¶12

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 Aarti, PS Bhalswa Dairy.

¶13

The Complainant/respondent No.2 states that the matter has been settled and she is living with petitioner no. 1 since 01.06.2023 at their matrimonial home and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed against the petitioners.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

“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

¶17

¶18

affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

¶19

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. 587/2022, under Sections 354/354(A)/509/377 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Bhalswa Dairy and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the Court of Ms. Preeti, Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-01), North District, Rohini Court, Delhi.

¶20

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 587/2022, under Sections 354/354(A)/509/377 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Bhalswa Dairy and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the Court of Ms. Preeti, Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-01), North District, Rohini Court, Delhi, is hereby quashed.

¶21

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶22

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

¶23

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶24

JANUARY 04, 2024 /sn

¶25

Neeraj & Ors. v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj & Ors. v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and 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

Umesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Vineet Sabhlok and Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

R.K. Gupta & Ors. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.

Latif @ Dallu Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Panchi @ Panchpal Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Ramesh Chander Goyal & Anr. Vs M/S Leo Ispat Ltd.