Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1597/2013
PARDEEP YADAV & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Joginder Kumar, Advocate with Mr. S.S. Drall, Advocate and the petitioners in person.
Through: Mr. Rajat Agnihotri, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State with SI
Kaptan Singh, PS: Chhawla.
Mr. Ravinder Yadav and Mr. Bhagwan Singh, Advocates with respondent No.2 in person.
ORDER o/o 27.09.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.32/2011 lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant under Sections 406/498A IPC at Police Station: Chhawla.
2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the respondent No.2, wife of the petitioner No.l and it is stated that during the pendency of the W.P.(CRL) 1597/2013 1of 3 2013:DHC:8134 matrimonial dispute between the parties, they have arrived at an out of court settlement as recorded in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.12.2011 (Annexure B). As per the MOU, the parties had agreed that the petitioners would pay a total sum of ?10 lacs to the respondent No.2/complainant in full and final settlement of all her claims against them and out ofthe aforesaid amount of ?10 lacs, only a sum of ?2.50 lacs remains to be paid. It is stated that the marriage of the petitioner No.l and the respondent No.2/complainant stands dissolved in terms of the decree of dissolution dated 05.10.2012 (Annexure C).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients have brought the balance sum of ?2.50 lacs by way of a demand draft bearing No.329778 dated 25.09.2013 drawn on Corporation Bank, Palam Vihar Branch in favour of the respondent No.2/complainant, which is handed over and duly received by the respondent No.2/complainant, through counsel.
4. Counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant confirms that having received the aforesaid amount, nothing further is due or payable by the petitioners to his client and she has no objection to quashing of the subject FIR. W.P.(CRL) 1597/2013 P^ge 2of 3
5. Counsel for the State subnnits that as the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved, the State has no objection to the prayer made in the present petition being allowed.
6. The Court has heard the counsels for the parties. In view of the submission made by respondent No.2/complainant and in view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.
7. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition is allowed. FIR No.32/2011, lodged by respondent No.2/complainant with Police Station: Chhawla, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
8. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. HIMA KOHLI, 3 SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 rkb/sk