Delhi High Court - Orders
Gurpreet Singh And Ors vs State ( Nct Of Delhi )And Anr on 16 March, 2023
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1803/2023
GURPREET SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate with
petitioners no. 1 to 3 in-person.
versus
STATE ( NCT OF DELHI )AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State
with S.I. Manisha, P.S. Mukherjee
Nagar, Delhi.
Respondent no. 2 in-person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 16.03.2023 CRL.M.A. 6903/2023 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of accordingly.
CRL.M.C. 1803/20231. The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 578/2020, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Upasana Satija, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (North West), Rohini Court, Delhi.
2. The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:22.03.2023 14:52:21 no.2/wife was solemnized on 05.10.2017 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies.
3. No child was born out of the said wedlock.
4. Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately from 01.11.2018. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged an FIR against 10 persons, including the present petitioners. However, the chargesheet has been filed only qua petitioner no.1 (husband), petitioner no. 2 (father-in-law) and petitioner no. 3 (mother-in-law).
5. On 29.03.2022, parties arrived at a settlement before Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts and as per the said settlement/agreement, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- to the respondent no.2/wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims including istridhan, permanent alimony and maintenance - present, past and future. The copy of the aforesaid settlement/agreement dated 29.03.2022 is on record (Annexure P-3).
6. In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 21.11.2022, passed by Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Principal Judge, Family Courts, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-5). Further, as per the settlement deed, an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been paid to her in Court today, by means of a demand draft.
7. 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, S.I. Manisha, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
8. A demand draft bearing no. 462697 dated 23.02.2023 for Rs.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:22.03.2023 14:52:212,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank has been handed over to the complainant/Respondent No.2, who acknowledges the receipt of the same.
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. She further states that all the terms of the agreement have been complied with.
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. 578/2020, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Upasana Satija, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (North West), Rohini Court, Delhi.
13. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 578/2020, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:22.03.2023 14:52:21 Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Upasana Satija, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (North West), Rohini Court, Delhi, is hereby quashed.
14. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT SHARMA, J MARCH 16, 2023/ab Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:22.03.2023 14:52:21