Quashed

Kuldeep and Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC5 Dec 2024CRL.M.C./9532/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, relying on a divorce by mutual consent and a subsequent settlement deed where all claims including maintenance were finalized. The settlement was fully performated, and the state objected to any further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 836/2022 and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and closed.

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

¶1

$~69

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 9532/2024 and CRL.M.A. 36594/2024 KULDEEP AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Raajan Aggarwal, Mr. Rajiv Singh and Mr. Rishi Kant Mishra, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with SI Sumit, P.S. Bawana. Mr. Rahul, Advocate for respondent No.2 alongiwth R2.

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R 05.12.2024

¶8

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner(s), who are the former husband and in-laws of the complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 836/2022 dated 22.01.2022 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Bawana, Delhi.

¶9

The petition is premised on Settlement Deed dated 03.07.2024; and Divorce Decree dated 07.09.2024, which is the culmination of petitions under sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, whereby the parties had sought dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

¶10

The petition is supported by affidavits of the petitioners, as also of respondent No. 2, alongwith proof of their IDs.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 9532/2024

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶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 10/12/2024 at 10:57:17

¶14

The petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

¶15

The parties have confirmed that one child, viz. Lovnish, was born from the wedlock, who is minor as of date.

¶16

No appeal is stated to have been filed from the divorce decree.

¶17

The court has queried respondent No. 2, who confirms that she has taken divorce by mutual consent; and that a settlement deed has been entered into between the parties; and that in full-and-final settlement of all her claims including towards maintenance (past, present and future), stridhan , dowry articles, jewellery, permanent alimony, etc., she was to receive a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-from petitioner No. 1; out of which Rs. 3,50,000 /- was paid earlier and Rs. 1,50,000/- has been paid in court today, in compliance of the terms of the settlement deed. Respondent No. 2 confirms that all aspects of the settlement have now been performed.

¶18

Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned APP confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

¶19

In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all

CRL.M.C. 9532/2024

Page 2 of 3

subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶24

Accordingly case FIR No. 836/2022 dated 22.01.2022 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at P.S.: Bawana, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶25

Though the settlement deed also records that the minor child shall remain in the custody of respondent No.2, it is made clear that nothing in this settlement agreement would affect the right of the minor children to meet his father, if and when he so desires, subject to the logistical convenience of the parties.

¶26

Needless to add that the settlement between the parties leading to the closure of all criminal proceedings by way of the present order will in no way affect the property rights and other rights of the minor child, namely Lovnish vis-à-vis his father, as may be available under law, in any manner whatsoever.

¶27