Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2837/2011 & Crl.M.A. 10117/2011
SANJAY MODI & ORS
Through:
CRL.M.C. 2837/2011 & Crl.M.A. 10117/2011
SANJAY MODI & ORS
Through:
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI & ORS
Through:
Through:
CORAM: ..... Petitioner Mr.Rakesh Pathak, Adv. ..... Respondent
Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
Re:spondent No.2/Complainant in person.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
07.05.2012 This petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 228/2009, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Dwarka. The petitioner Sanjay
Modi was married with the respondent No.2/complainant Bharti on 7.3.2003. The couple has a male child, who was born on 29.4.2008 out of the wedlock. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Bharti against her husband Sanjay Modi and his parents on the allegations of ill-treatment and harassment as also beatings. cruelty on account of demand of dowry. There are various specific allegations against the petitioners having beaten and harassed the respondent
No.2/complainant physically as well as mentally on different occasions. Bharti allegedly left the matrimonial home in Mlarch, 2004. A petition under Section 9.
HMA was filed for restoration of the conjugal rights by the petitioner Sanjay
Modi, which was ultimately withdrawn by him in June, 2005. A petition under
2012:DHC:8076 Section 6, Hindu Guardianship Act seeking custody of the minor son was also filed by him, which is stated to be pending in a court at Gurgaon. A petition of divorce under Section 13, HMA was filed against her, wherein a compromise was arrived at between them on 12.5.2011. In pursuance thereto, a sum of Rs. 7000/- p.m. was agreed to be paid by the petitioner Sanjay Modi to his child till he attains the age of majority. For this, an account was to be opened by the respondent
No.2/complainant Bharti in the name of her child under her guardianship and the petitioner Sanjay Modi was to deposit the aforesaid monthly amount ofRs. 70001- in the said account.
The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR on account that since the matter was compromised finally between the parties, the FIR was liable to be quashed.
The petition has been strongly resisted by the complainant Bharti alleging that the petitioner Sanjay Modi has failed to comply the aforesaid term of payment ofRs. 7000/- per month, as agreed. The submission ofthe petitioners' counsel in this regard was that the petitioner Sanjay rviodi was not liable to make payment of this amount till the grant of divorce by mutual consent. Despite that, the said settlement dated 12.5.2011 was read by me with the learned counsel for the petitioners and which, on a plain reading would clearly reveal that the petitioner
Sanjay Modi was under obligation to pay Rs. 7,000/- monthly in the name of his child by depositing the same in the account to be opened by his wife Bharti
(complainant) in the child's name under her guardianship. The learned counsel. however, maintained his interpretation that the petitioner Sanjay Modi was not liable to make any payment till the divorce was granted. To this, the respondent/complainant Bharti strongly resisted saying that till such time the petitioner complies the above term as agreed, she would not go for divorce by mutual consent. She submitted that her husband having failed to comply with his part of the terms and having not acted upon the said agreement, she was not bound for moving for mutual divorce petition. Having gone through the settlement that was recorded on 12.5.2011 in its entirety, I am in agreement with the respondent/complainant that the petitioner Sanjay Modi, as agreed, was to pay the aforesaid maintenance amount to his child as a condition precedent to the parties going for divorce by mutual consent. Since the agreement that was arrived has not been acted upon by the parties and there being serious allegations against the petitioners including the husband of the complainant, the quashing of FIR is not permissible at this stage.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
~~ M.L. MEHTA, J MAY 07, 2012
Re:spondent No.2/Complainant in person.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
07.05.2012 This petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 228/2009, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Dwarka. The petitioner Sanjay
Modi was married with the respondent No.2/complainant Bharti on 7.3.2003. The couple has a male child, who was born on 29.4.2008 out of the wedlock. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Bharti against her husband Sanjay Modi and his parents on the allegations of ill-treatment and harassment as also beatings. cruelty on account of demand of dowry. There are various specific allegations against the petitioners having beaten and harassed the respondent
No.2/complainant physically as well as mentally on different occasions. Bharti allegedly left the matrimonial home in Mlarch, 2004. A petition under Section 9.
HMA was filed for restoration of the conjugal rights by the petitioner Sanjay
Modi, which was ultimately withdrawn by him in June, 2005. A petition under
2012:DHC:8076 Section 6, Hindu Guardianship Act seeking custody of the minor son was also filed by him, which is stated to be pending in a court at Gurgaon. A petition of divorce under Section 13, HMA was filed against her, wherein a compromise was arrived at between them on 12.5.2011. In pursuance thereto, a sum of Rs. 7000/- p.m. was agreed to be paid by the petitioner Sanjay Modi to his child till he attains the age of majority. For this, an account was to be opened by the respondent
No.2/complainant Bharti in the name of her child under her guardianship and the petitioner Sanjay Modi was to deposit the aforesaid monthly amount ofRs. 70001- in the said account.
The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR on account that since the matter was compromised finally between the parties, the FIR was liable to be quashed.
The petition has been strongly resisted by the complainant Bharti alleging that the petitioner Sanjay Modi has failed to comply the aforesaid term of payment ofRs. 7000/- per month, as agreed. The submission ofthe petitioners' counsel in this regard was that the petitioner Sanjay rviodi was not liable to make payment of this amount till the grant of divorce by mutual consent. Despite that, the said settlement dated 12.5.2011 was read by me with the learned counsel for the petitioners and which, on a plain reading would clearly reveal that the petitioner
Sanjay Modi was under obligation to pay Rs. 7,000/- monthly in the name of his child by depositing the same in the account to be opened by his wife Bharti
(complainant) in the child's name under her guardianship. The learned counsel. however, maintained his interpretation that the petitioner Sanjay Modi was not liable to make any payment till the divorce was granted. To this, the respondent/complainant Bharti strongly resisted saying that till such time the petitioner complies the above term as agreed, she would not go for divorce by mutual consent. She submitted that her husband having failed to comply with his part of the terms and having not acted upon the said agreement, she was not bound for moving for mutual divorce petition. Having gone through the settlement that was recorded on 12.5.2011 in its entirety, I am in agreement with the respondent/complainant that the petitioner Sanjay Modi, as agreed, was to pay the aforesaid maintenance amount to his child as a condition precedent to the parties going for divorce by mutual consent. Since the agreement that was arrived has not been acted upon by the parties and there being serious allegations against the petitioners including the husband of the complainant, the quashing of FIR is not permissible at this stage.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
~~ M.L. MEHTA, J MAY 07, 2012
JUDGMENT