Delhi High Court - Orders
Vijender Singh & Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 22 December, 2022
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 6709/2022
VIJENDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Imran Khan with Mr. Raj Kumar,
Advocates alongwith petitioners in
person.
Petitioner no. 4 through video
conferencing as she is residing in
Tamilnadu.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with
Insp. Davender Singh, PS: Ghazipur
Mr. Brahm Kumar Pandey, Advocate
for R-2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 22.12.2022
CRL.M.A. 26105/2022 (exemption) CRL.M.A. 26106/2022
(exemption-personal appearance)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of accordingly CRL.M.C. 6709/2022 The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:24.12.2022 12:53:19 FIR No. 64/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Ghazipur, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Shazadi Halima Sadiya, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 16.11.2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
No child was born out of the said wedlock.
Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2/complainant filed a complaint resulting into a FIR against petitioner no.1 (husband), petitioner no. 2 (father-in-law), petitioner no. 3 (mother-in-law), petitioner no. 4 (sister-in-law), petitioner no. 5(brother-in-law), petitioner no. 6(Aunt), petitioner no. 7 (son of Aunt/cousin brother) and one of the accused namely Niranjan Singh who passed away on 27.05.2020. Copy of the death certificate is annexed in the present petition which is not disputed by the Investigating Officer Insp. Devender Singh, PS: Ghazipur.
On 03.09.2022, parties arrived at a settlement and as per the said settlement deed, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the respondent no.2/wife towards full and final settlement. The copy of the aforesaid settlement deed dated 03.09.2022 is on record (Annexure A-3).
In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 20.10.2022, passed by Shri Naresh Kumar Malhotra, Judge, Family Courts (East district), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Annexure A-4). Further, as per the settlement deed, an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:24.12.2022 12:53:19 amount of Rs.4,50,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid to her in court today, by means of a demand draft.
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, Insp. Davender Singh, PS: Ghazipur.
A demand draft bearing no. 018389 dated 12.12.2022 for Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India has been handed over complainant/Respondent No.2, who acknowledges the receipt of the same.
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.
In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
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:-
"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."
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. 64/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Ghazipur, Delhi and all other consequential Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:24.12.2022 12:53:19 proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Shazadi Halima Sadiya, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 64/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Ghazipur, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Shazadi Halima Sadiya, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, is hereby quashed.
Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT SHARMA, J DECEMBER 22, 2022/hb Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:24.12.2022 12:53:19