Full Text
'< IN THE HIGH COURT OF
+ CRL.M.C.3225/2OLr
LAL CHAN D
Through
DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Pradeep Kumar and Mr. H. B. Jha, Advocates l, VCTSUS
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the
State with SHO Hari Singh, Vinay Vihar
26.09.2011
This is a petition for quashing of FIR no.7I/09, u/S 49BA/406
IPC registered by P.S. Vinay Vihar presently pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini courts, New Delhi on the ground that the petitioner has settled all his matrimonial disputes with the respondent no.2/complainant.
As a consequence of the said settlement, a decree of divorce has been obtained on the basis of the mutual consent from the Competent Court on 21 .07.20t7.
The petitioner is present in person. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the said compromise an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- was to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent no.2/complainant out of o/o
1.
F, 2.
,3.
2011:DHC:13077 which an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has already been paid to her. The balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is being paid to the respondent no.2/complainant today. The balance amount is handed over to the respondent no.2/complainant by way of pay order dated L2.07.2011 drawn from the Delhi State co- operative Bank Ltd., Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi.
ORDER
4. The respondent no.2/complainant is present and she is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, Inspector Hari Singh. It has been further stated that the respondent no. 2 has no objection in case the proceedings in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR are quashed. She has supported the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that divorce has been granted on the basis of mutual consent and respondent no.2/complainant has also admitted that the total settlement amount of Rs.3,75,000/- has been received by her towards full and final settlement of her entire claim and the claim of her minor daughter baby Payal till the day she attains the age of majority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the amount of Rs.3,75,000/- which includer the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- payable to the minor child will be binding on 5.
6. {
7. B. the minor child only till she attains the age of majority. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I feel since the petitioner and respondent no.2 have obtained divorce on the basis of mutual consent from the competent court of law, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings pending before the learned metropolitan Magistrate, which is stated to be listed on 12. t[2].20lt. Accordingly, FIR no.7L/09, uls 498A/406 IPC registered by P.S. Vinay Vihar and the consequent proceedings are quashed. However, it is clarified that in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the compromise and the amount of settlement which has been received by the respondent no.2 in favour of her minor daughter baby Payal will be valid and binding on her till the time she attains the age of majority. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs. f
9. (
10.
11. M v.K. sHALr,J SEPTEMBER 26,2OLL b +'