Full Text
Translation output
#5
% 25.05.2011
Present: Petitioners in person with Mr.Ravindra Narayan, Advocate, who identifies them.
Ms. Santosh Kohli, APP APP for the State/respondent No.1 with 51
Shri Bhagwan, P.S. Aman Vihar; the Investigating Officer.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
.- +Cr!.M.C. 981/21[))11
••,.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR
No.l033/2001 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at P.S. Dabri on the complaint of the respondent No.2.
Ground for seeking quashing is that the FIR is the result of matrimonial discord, which has been amicably settled and. now, there is no dispute left between the parties.
It is submitted that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement
..
_; .~in mediation proceedings. The terms of settlement were reduced into writing
~ . . and were signed by the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2, who is identified by 51 Shri Bhagwan, Police Station
Aman Vihar, Investigating Officer of this case confirms that she has arrived at an amicable settlement with the petitioners of her own accord without any inducement or threat and pursuant to the settlement, she has obtained consent ~ivorce. She states -that as per the term~ of settlement, she has been paid ~ 15,000/- by the petitioners against tJer claim for 'stridhan', maintenance-past and future. She further states that now, there is no
2011:DHC:10449 dispute left between her and the petitioners and therefore, she does not want the petitioners to be prosecuted on her FIR and she has no objection if
I the FIR is quashed.
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 a and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed provided, the right of minor child of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 to claim maintenance is protected. In this regard, she has referr~d to Clause 10 of the settlement agreement arrived at during mediation proceedings wherein, it is provided that respondent No. 2 shall not file any case with regard to the maintenance of minor child Vansh against the petitioner No.1.
It is made clear to the petitioner No. 1 that Clause 10 of the settlement agreement is unfunctionable as well as void for the reason that husband and
.r~ wife, while settling their matrimonial dispute cannot restrict the right of
·JY minor child to claim maintenance from either of the parents. Petitioner NO. 1 states that he understands the legal implication and he has no objection, if a clarification regarding the right of minor child is given in this order.
Since the parties have amicably settled the matter and now there is no dispute left, I feel that no useful purpose shall be served in prosecuting the petitioners on the basis of instant FIR. Accordingly, FIR No. 1033/2001 under
Sections 406/498A/34 IPC .registered at P.S. Dabri and the proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.
It is clarified that the settlement arrived ,at between the parties shall not affect the rights of minor child Vansh to claim maintenance from either of the parents or inh'eritance in the property of either of the parents.
Petition stands disposed of.
~
(Aj U1r fBHHIAIRU IHIOC<IE) j u.D [D)<GIE
MAY 25, 2011 akb
/
% 25.05.2011
Present: Petitioners in person with Mr.Ravindra Narayan, Advocate, who identifies them.
Ms. Santosh Kohli, APP APP for the State/respondent No.1 with 51
Shri Bhagwan, P.S. Aman Vihar; the Investigating Officer.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
.- +Cr!.M.C. 981/21[))11
••,.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR
No.l033/2001 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at P.S. Dabri on the complaint of the respondent No.2.
Ground for seeking quashing is that the FIR is the result of matrimonial discord, which has been amicably settled and. now, there is no dispute left between the parties.
It is submitted that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement
..
_; .~in mediation proceedings. The terms of settlement were reduced into writing
~ . . and were signed by the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2, who is identified by 51 Shri Bhagwan, Police Station
Aman Vihar, Investigating Officer of this case confirms that she has arrived at an amicable settlement with the petitioners of her own accord without any inducement or threat and pursuant to the settlement, she has obtained consent ~ivorce. She states -that as per the term~ of settlement, she has been paid ~ 15,000/- by the petitioners against tJer claim for 'stridhan', maintenance-past and future. She further states that now, there is no
2011:DHC:10449 dispute left between her and the petitioners and therefore, she does not want the petitioners to be prosecuted on her FIR and she has no objection if
I the FIR is quashed.
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 a and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed provided, the right of minor child of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 to claim maintenance is protected. In this regard, she has referr~d to Clause 10 of the settlement agreement arrived at during mediation proceedings wherein, it is provided that respondent No. 2 shall not file any case with regard to the maintenance of minor child Vansh against the petitioner No.1.
It is made clear to the petitioner No. 1 that Clause 10 of the settlement agreement is unfunctionable as well as void for the reason that husband and
.r~ wife, while settling their matrimonial dispute cannot restrict the right of
·JY minor child to claim maintenance from either of the parents. Petitioner NO. 1 states that he understands the legal implication and he has no objection, if a clarification regarding the right of minor child is given in this order.
Since the parties have amicably settled the matter and now there is no dispute left, I feel that no useful purpose shall be served in prosecuting the petitioners on the basis of instant FIR. Accordingly, FIR No. 1033/2001 under
Sections 406/498A/34 IPC .registered at P.S. Dabri and the proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.
It is clarified that the settlement arrived ,at between the parties shall not affect the rights of minor child Vansh to claim maintenance from either of the parents or inh'eritance in the property of either of the parents.
Petition stands disposed of.
~
(Aj U1r fBHHIAIRU IHIOC<IE) j u.D [D)<GIE
MAY 25, 2011 akb
/
JUDGMENT