Alok Gupta v. Urwashi Gupta

1. By this petition, petitioner Alol< Gupta is seei<ing quashing of FIR No.98/2008, R.S. C.W.C. Nanak Pura under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 Smt.Urwashi Gupta.

2. The ground for seeking quashing is that parties have entered into an amicable settlement during mediation proceedings and signed the Settlement Agreement. Copy of the Settlement Agreement is placed on record.

3. Petitioner No.l is identified by his counsel Ms.Poonam Kalia.

4. Respondent No.2 is identified by his counsel Mr.Gaje Singh as well as by Sh.Chander Pal, the Investigating Officer of the case.

5. Both the parties submit that they have entered into a settlement agreement dated 5^^ March 2010 in Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre of their own accord and without any inducement or threat. Respondent No.2 submits that as per the settlement, petitioner No.l o

V. ^ 2011:DHC:12139 had agreed to pay a sum of ^3,60,000/- to respondent No.2 in full and final settlennent of all her claims towards stridhan, maintenance and permanent alimony etc. besides ^4,50,000/- towards the education and maintenance of minor child Baby Yuvika. Respondent No.2 further states that out of the aforesaid total amount of Rs.8,10,000/-, petitioner No.l has already paid a sum of ?5,40,000/- and balance ^2,70,000/- is yet to be paid. The said amount is paid today to respondent No.2, vide two Pay Orders bearing No.862579 and 862580 for lfl,50,000/- and 20,000/- respectively; one in the name of Baby Yuvika and other in the name of Urwashi Gupta (respondent No.2) issued by State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur on 20"" December 2010.

6. Respondent No.2 undertakes that she will open a fixed deposit account in the name of Baby Yuvika for an amount of ?4,50,000/- and she will utilize the interest earned on that FDR for the maintenance and other needs of Baby Yuvika. Respondent No.2 further submits that since the matter has been amicably resolved, she does not want any action against the petitioner on her FIR and she has no objection if the FIR No. No.98/2008, P.S. C.W.C. Nanak Pura under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

7. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. State has no objection to the quashing of the above FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom. \V %

8. On perusal of the terms of settlement, it transpires that parties vide this agreement has foreclosed the rights of their minor child to seek future maintenance or inheritance from petitioner No.l. Under the Law of Contract, two parties cannot enter into an agreement adverse to the interest of a third party, even if he or she is a major. In the instant case. Baby Yuvika is a minor. Therefore, the petitioner No.l and respondent No.2 have no right to restrict her right to claim maintenance or inheritance from either of the parents. It is, therefore, explained to the parties that despite of their having been arrived at a settlement, it will have no impact on the rights of the minor child and they have agreed to this proposition. Petitioner No.l and Respondent No.2 state that they understand that this settlement shall have no impact on the rights of the child to claim maintenance from either of their parents and request for quashing of the FIR.

9. Since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, I do not find any purpose in keeping the FIR No.98/2008, P.S. C.W.C. Nanak Pura under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG, which is the result of matrimonial discord and the proceedings out of the same, alive. Tl:ierefore, FIR No.98/2008, P.S. G.W.G. Nanak Pura under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG and the proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. It is made clear that quashing of FIR or the agreement arrived at between the parties shall not in any manner restrict the rights of minor child Baby Yuvika to claim maintenance or inheritance from either of the parents.

10. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

11. Parties shall be bound by their undertaking.

JANUARY 27, 2011

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE