Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.Cs. 1665/2008 & 1450/2013 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: February 11, 2015
Date of Decision: February 11, 2015
CRL.M.C. 1665/2008
RAJIV MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Sanjeev Manchanda and Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocates
RAJIV MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Sanjeev Manchanda and Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2
CRL.M.C. 1450/2013 & Crl.M.A.4546/2013
ANITA MALHOTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Sanjeev Manchanda and Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocates
ANITA MALHOTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Sanjeev Manchanda and Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2
2015:DHC:1378 CRL.M.Cs. 1665/2008 & 1450/2013 Page 2
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2
2015:DHC:1378 CRL.M.Cs. 1665/2008 & 1450/2013 Page 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR No.37/2008 under Sections 498-A/406/323/341/34 of IPC registered at P. S. Hari
Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement Agreement of
18th January, 2010 (Annexure-C).
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions were heard together and by this common judgment, they are being disposed of as the dispute in these two petitions arises out of one
FIR.
Upon notice, respondent No.2, who is the complainant/first- informant of the FIR in question, has appeared and on her behalf, it was submitted that the aforesaid Mediated Settlement Agreement has been violated by petitioner as she was not permitted to remain on the first floor of the matrimonial house and so, the pending cases have not been withdrawn. This is disputed by learned counsel for petitioners, who submits that respondent No.2 has received the settled amount, but now she is not coming forward to get the FIR in question quashed.
During the pendency of this petition, both the sides had submitted that they again want to explore a possibility of a fresh mediated settlement through Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and for that purpose, they had appeared before the aforesaid Forum.
Unfortunately, the mediation effort has not proved fruitful.
CRL.M.Cs. 1665/2008 & 1450/2013 Page 3 Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, has brought to the notice of this Court that the charge- sheet in this FIR case has been already filed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR of this case, earlier
Settlement Agreement and the material on record, I find that the earlier
Settlement Agreement of 18th January, 2010 has not been acted upon as respondent-wife claims that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home.
This is an aspect which cannot be gone into under proceedings under
Sections 482 of Cr.P.C. as it would be a matter of evidence as to who had defaulted in performance of the Settlement Agreement of 18th January,
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR No.37/2008 under Sections 498-A/406/323/341/34 of IPC registered at P. S. Hari
Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement Agreement of
18th January, 2010 (Annexure-C).
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions were heard together and by this common judgment, they are being disposed of as the dispute in these two petitions arises out of one
FIR.
Upon notice, respondent No.2, who is the complainant/first- informant of the FIR in question, has appeared and on her behalf, it was submitted that the aforesaid Mediated Settlement Agreement has been violated by petitioner as she was not permitted to remain on the first floor of the matrimonial house and so, the pending cases have not been withdrawn. This is disputed by learned counsel for petitioners, who submits that respondent No.2 has received the settled amount, but now she is not coming forward to get the FIR in question quashed.
During the pendency of this petition, both the sides had submitted that they again want to explore a possibility of a fresh mediated settlement through Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and for that purpose, they had appeared before the aforesaid Forum.
Unfortunately, the mediation effort has not proved fruitful.
CRL.M.Cs. 1665/2008 & 1450/2013 Page 3 Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, has brought to the notice of this Court that the charge- sheet in this FIR case has been already filed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR of this case, earlier
Settlement Agreement and the material on record, I find that the earlier
Settlement Agreement of 18th January, 2010 has not been acted upon as respondent-wife claims that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home.
This is an aspect which cannot be gone into under proceedings under
Sections 482 of Cr.P.C. as it would be a matter of evidence as to who had defaulted in performance of the Settlement Agreement of 18th January,
2010. Since the subsequent effort for mediated settlement has failed, therefore, quashing of FIR in question on the basis of settlement as sought in these two petitions cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, both these petitions and the application are disposed of with liberty to the parties to avail of the remedies as available in law to them as the charge-sheet in this FIR case has been already filed.
JUDGE FEBRUARY 11, 2015 s