Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajesh Bairwa & Ors vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) & Anr on 10 October, 2023
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 7356/2023
RAJESH BAIRWA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal,
Advocate (through VC).
Petitioner no. 1 to 4 in person.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the
State with ASI Dilbag Hussain, P.S.
Tigri.
Respondent no. 2 in person alongwith
Counsel (appearance not given).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 10.10.2023 CRL.M.A. 27440/2023 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 7356/20233. The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 75/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, P.S. Tigri and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Rashi Raheja, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
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 17/10/2023 at 09:56:31
4. The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 11.05.2011 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock.
5. Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged an FIR against petitioner no.1 (husband), petitioner no. 2 (brother-in-law) and petitioner no. 3 (mother-in- law), petitioner no. 4 (brother-in-law), petitioner no. 5 (sister-in-law), Mr. Mahendar Singh (not-chargesheeted), Ms. Pooja (not-chargesheeted), Ms. Mamta (not-chargesheeted) and Ms. Guddi (not-chargesheeted).
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their disputes vide Settlement deed/Agreement dated 26.02.2022. In pursuance of the aforesaid settlement deed/Agreement, respondent no. 2 has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 are residing together peacefully in their matrimonial home for the last two years. The copy of the aforesaid settlement deed dated 26.02.2022, is on record (Annexure P-5).
7. Petitioners no. 1 to 4 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, A.S.I. Dilbag Hussain, P.S. Tigri.
8. On an oral request on the ground that petitioner no. 5 is out of station and is not able to appear before this Court, personal appearance of petitioner no. 5 is exempted.
9. 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.
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 17/10/2023 at 09:56:31 She further states that she is residing peacefully with petitioner no. 1 in their matrimonial home for last two years.
10. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
11. 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."
12. 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. 75/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, P.S. Tigri and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Rashi Raheja, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
13. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 75/2019, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, P.S. Tigri and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Rashi Raheja, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi, is hereby quashed.
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 17/10/2023 at 09:56:32
14. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT SHARMA, J OCTOBER 10, 2023/bsr 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 17/10/2023 at 09:56:32