Allowed

Sh Shubham Singhal and Ors. v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC30 Jan 2024CRL.M.C./697/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered under various IPC sections. The court held that since the parties reached a settlement, obtained a divorce decree, and paid the agreed compensation, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.0106/2021 under various IPC sections registered at Police Station North Rohini, Delhi, along with all other emanating proceedings, is quashed.

Sh Shubham Singhal and Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 697/2024

¶4

SH SHUBHAM SINGHAL AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr Yogesh Goel and Mr Yesh Pal Saini, Advocates along with petitioners in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Raj Kumar, APP for the State with SI Munish Kumar, PS North Rohini. Mr Inderjeet, Advocate along with respondent no.2 in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 30.01.2024

¶10

CRL.M.A. 2819/2024

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 697/2024

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.0106/2021 under Sections 323/341/354/354(B)/506/380/34 IPC registered at Police Station North Rohini, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶13

Issue notice. The learned APP for the State accepts notice. He submits that since the FIR is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute and the parties

¶14

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 10:46:25

¶15

have arrived at a settlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

¶16

The petitioner no.1 (former husband) and petitioner nos.2 to 4, who are close relatives of the petitioner no.1, as well as, respondent no. 2 (former wife) are present in the Court whereas petitioner no.5 appears through video conferencing. The parties have been identified by their respective counsel, as well as, by the Investigating Officer SI Munish Kumar, PS North Rohini.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 19.07.2018 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of the said wedlock, one girl child, namely, Prishu was born, who is in the care and custody of the petitioner no.1.

¶18

On account of temperamental issues certain disputes arose between the parties and they started living separately w.e.f. 11.01.2021. The dispute between the parties also led to the registration of present FIR at the instance of the respondent no.2.

¶19

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi where they arrived at a settlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form of Settlement dated 22.07.2023, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-P2 to the present petition.

¶20

In terms of the said settlement, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 decided to dissolve their marriage by filing a petition for divorce by way of mutual consent. Accordingly, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have obtained a decree of divorce dated 10.10.2023, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-P4 to the present petition.

¶21

It is a term of the settlement between the parties that the petitioner

¶22

¶23

no.1 shall pay a total sum of Rs.42 lakhs to the respondent no.2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims on account of streedhan , permanent alimony, dowry articles, maintenance (past, present and future) etc. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.26 lakhs has already been paid by the petitioner no.1 to the respondent no.2 in the manner as mentioned in the settlement. The remaining amount of Rs.16 lakhs have been paid to the respondent no.2 today in the court by the petitioner no.1 by way of two Demand Drafts. The details of which are as under:-

¶24

(i) DD No.731430 dated 15.01.2024 for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/issued by Punjab National Bank.

¶25

(ii) DD No.035964 dated 15.01.2024 for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/issued by AXIS Bank.

¶26

The receipt of entire amount of Rs.42 lakhs is acknowledged by the respondent no.2, who is present in court.

¶27

The petition is also supported by an affidavit of the petitioner no.1 (former husband), as well as, the respondent no.2 (former wife) wherein it has been stated that the rights of the child will not be affected by the settlement arrived at between them.

¶28

The respondent no.2, on a query put by the Court, states that she has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

¶29

In view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them.

¶30

It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

¶31

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.0106/2021

¶32

¶33

under Sections 323/341/354/354(B)/506/380/34 IPC registered at Police Station North Rohini, Delhi alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

¶34

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶35

Order be uploaded on the website of this court.

¶36

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶37

JANUARY 30, 2024 MK

¶38

Sh Shubham Singhal and Ors. v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Shubham Singhal and Ors. v. the State Govt. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amet Vikram Chhabra Vs State

Sujit Kumar Gautam Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Pankaj Kumar Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Pooja@Rakhi Kapoor Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Gopal Singh Vs CBI

Shekhar Jain and Anr. Vs the State and Anr.