ebd57765eeefbd221f89ddf9ef7aefdee2d61196e605a2fea0dda673cc619ea2

1. Petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are identified by their respective counsels.

2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.108/2007 registered under Section 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin on the comp·laint of respondent No.2. The ground for seeking quashing is the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties in the mediation proceedings conducted at Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR in question is the result of a matrimonial discord between the parties, which has been amicably settled and now there is no dispute left. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was referred to mediation and in the mediation proceedings, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, copy of which is annexed to the petition. Learned counsel submits that as per the terms and conditions of the settlement, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have agreed to apply for consent divorce. It was also agreed that petitioner No.1 shall pay a sum of ~12 lacs to the respondent No.2 for full and final settlement of her claims for stridhan and maintenance, out of which ~ 6 lacs were meant for the use of 2011:DHC:10367 respondent No.2 and balance ~ 6 lacs was supposed to be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Kumari Bhavleen, minor daughter of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. It is further submitted that pursuant to the settlement, an FOR for ~6 lacs was opened in the name of the minor daughter and deposited in the trial court. Balance ~6 lacs have been paid to respondent No.2 at the time of withdrawal of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.2. It is also submitted that pursuant to the settlement, parties have obtained consent divorce. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid settlement between the parties, no purpose shall be served by prosecuting the petitioners on the basis of FIR of respondent No.2. As such, he has urged for quashing of FIR.

4. Perusal of the settlement agreement would show that some of tHe clauses of this agreement restrict the rights of minor daughter of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 to claim maintenance/inheritance from petitioner No.1. Those clauses, being detrimental to the rights of Kumari Bhavleen, who is not a party to the agreement, in my considered view, are not enforceable. When the parties were confronted with the above legal position, they have today filed in the court their respective affidavits indicating that the clauses detrimental to the rights of the minor child, shall be treated as non est and unenforceable. Affidavits are taken on record.

5. Respondent No.2 confirms having entered into the above noted settlement in mediation proceedings of her own accord without any inducement or threat. She confirrns that she has received ~ 6 lacs from the petitioners. Besides that the petitioners have also opened an FOR for~ 6 lacs in the name of Kumari Bhavleen under her guardianship. Respondent Nm[2] further states that settlement agreement has been acted upon and she has obtained consent divorce from petitioner No.1. Custody of Kumari Bhavleen has been agreed to be with respondent No.2. She further states that in view of the settlement, she does not want the petitioners to be prosecuted on the basis of FIR and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

6. Learned APP appearing for the State submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, State has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

7. Since the parties have amicably settled the matter and now there is no dispute left, I feel that no useful purpose shall be se[1] rved in prosecuting the petitioners on the basis of FIR. Accordingly, FIR No.lOS/2007 registered under Section 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin and the proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

8. Petition stands disposed of.

9. Trial court is directed to release the FDR to the respondent No.2 at the earliest.

10. Order dasti.

OCTOBER OS, 2011 ks ~/

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE