Delhi High Court - Orders
1. Rahul Gupta S/O Late Sh. Anand Swaroop ... vs 1. The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) Delhi ... on 22 August, 2022
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
-1-
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3864/2022 & CRL.M.A.16104/2022
1. RAHUL GUPTA
S/O LATE SH. ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA
R/O HOUSE NO.D-10,
PUSHPANJALI ENCLAVE,
PITAMPURA, DELHI.
2. DEEPAK GUPTA
S/O LATE SH. ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA
R/O HOUSE NO.D-10,
PUSHPANJALI ENCLAVE,
PITAMPURA, DELHI. ....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Jitender Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
1. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
DELHI SECRETARIAT,
I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI.
2. ISHA BANSAL
D/O LATE SH. ANIL KUMAR BANSAL
R/O 3569/4, NARANG COLONY,
TRI NAGAR, DELHI-110035. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State along
with SI Hawa Singh, PS Mangol Puri.
Mr.Piyush Gupta, Mr.Aprorv Bansal, Ms.Akansha
Choudhary and Mr.Rakshit Pandey, Advocates for
respondent no.2.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:29.08.2022
11:27:24
-2-
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 22.08.2022
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No. 207/2019 under Sections 506/34/377/376 of IPC registered at Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The present FIR is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the respondent No. 2 (wife) and the petitioner No. 1 (husband).
3. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 are present in the Court and respondent No. 2 has been identified by the Investigating Officer and the petitioner was identified by the respondent No.2.
4. The facts of the case show that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 05.02.2017, at Rajouri Garden, Delhi, according to Hindu rites and rituals. However, on account of certain misunderstandings between them, FIR No. 207/2019 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 506/34/377/376 of the IPC registered at Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi.
5. During the pendency of the case, the parties have realised that since the entire dispute between them was matrimonial in nature and they have resolved the dispute amicably, accordingly, they had entered into a settlement deed dated 25.10.2022. It has been agreed between them that a sum of Rs.97,50,000/- would be paid to respondent No.2 by petitioner No.1 towards full and final payment of past present and future maintenance.
6. A demand draft of Rs.19,50,000/- bearing no.940068 dated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:29.08.2022 11:27:24 -3- 20.08.2022 is being handed over during the course of hearing and the same is accepted by respondent No.2. She however, submits that two instalments are yet to be paid.
7. Respondent No. 2 who is present in the court submits that she has entered into the aforesaid settlement with her own free will, volition and without any coercion and has no objection if the present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed, as she has no grievances against the present petitioners.
8. The statement and undertaking given on behalf of the parties is taken on record and they are held bound by the same.
9. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement voluntarily, without any force, therefore, under such circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of B.S. Joshi & Ors v. State of Haryana & Anr1., Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2and Jitendra Raghuvanshi & ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr.3, there is no reason as to why genuine settlement between the parties of a matrimonial dispute shall not be encouraged.
10. Hence, the FIR No.207/2019 under Sections 506/34/377/376 of the IPC registered at Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. Subject to encashment of the aforesaid demand draft.
11. Respondent No.2 would be at liberty to revive the present petition, in 1 (2003) 4 SCC 675 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:29.08.2022 11:27:24 -4- case, the Memorandum of Understanding in question is not fully obeyed.
12. The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending application.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 22, 2022/MJ 3 (2013) 4 SCC 58 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:29.08.2022 11:27:24