Full Text
Translation output
#27
18.01.2011
(
Present: Petitioners No. 1 to 4 in person with Mr.Ravinder Yadav, Advocate & Mr. Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate.
Petitioner No. 5/complainant in person with Mr.Vikas Yadav, Advocate.
Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the State/respondent.
+Crl.M.A.S36/2011 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C.114/2011
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c. seeking quashing of FIR
No. 785/2003, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Punjabi
8agh, New Delhi on the complaint of the petitioner NO.5.
The ground for seeking quashing is that the petitioners have arrived at an amicable settlement and now, there is no dispute left between them.
Petitioners No. 1 to 4 are present. They are identified by their counsel Sh.Ravinder Yadav, Advocate. Petitioner No. 5/complainant is also present. She is identified by her counsel Sh. Vikas Yadav, Advocate.
Parties confirm that the FIR in question is the result of matrimonial discord, which has been amicable settled and now, there is no dispute left.
Petitioner No. 5/complainant confirms that she has entered into an amicable settlement with petitioners No.1 to 4 of her own accord without any inducement or threat from any corner and pursuant to the compromise, petitioners No.1 to 4 have agreed to pay her a sum of ~ 11
--'.
'.
2011:DHC:8766
~
Lakhs besides an FDR of ~ 1,25,000/- in full and final settlement of her claim for 'stree-dhan' as well as past and future maintenance. Out of the said amount, she has already received a sum of ~ 7 Lakhs as well as the
FDR and today, she has received a banker's cheque bearing No. 059003 dated 17.01.2011 for ~ 4 Lakhs as full and final settlement of her claim.
She states that now, there is no dispute left and in view of the settlement, she does not want any action against the petitioners No.1 to 4 on her FIR and that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. She further states that terms of settlement are recorded in the copy of the settlement deed annexed to the petition and the original settlement deed was signed by her as well as the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner no.1 also confirms that the deed of settlement was signed by him.
On perusal of terms of settlement, it transpires that the parties have agreed that these terms of settlement shall bind the minor child Harsh so far as his past and future maintenance is concerned. Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.5, being parents of the minor child Master Harsh, while settling their dispute, have no legal right to restrict the right of minor child to claim maintenance from either of the parents. Both petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.5, when apprised of this fact, agree that they understand that the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties shall not restrict the right of minor child alld child shall be free to claim maintenance, if required, from either of the parents.
Learned APP submits that in view of the nature of offence and the compromise arrived at between the petitioners No. 1 to 4 and the petitioner No. 5/complainant, State has no objection if the FIR a2 as the proceedings arising out of the same is quashed, provided the right of the child be secured.
Since the parties have amicably resolved their matter and now, there is no dispute left, I feel that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the FIR and the proceedings arising out of the same alive.
Accordingly, FIR No. 785/2003, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
It is clarified that the settlement arrived at between the petitioners shall not come in the way of the minor child Harsh to claim maintenance from either of the parents.
JANUARY 18, 2011 akb
~
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
--'.
18.01.2011
(
Present: Petitioners No. 1 to 4 in person with Mr.Ravinder Yadav, Advocate & Mr. Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate.
Petitioner No. 5/complainant in person with Mr.Vikas Yadav, Advocate.
Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the State/respondent.
+Crl.M.A.S36/2011 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C.114/2011
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c. seeking quashing of FIR
No. 785/2003, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Punjabi
8agh, New Delhi on the complaint of the petitioner NO.5.
The ground for seeking quashing is that the petitioners have arrived at an amicable settlement and now, there is no dispute left between them.
Petitioners No. 1 to 4 are present. They are identified by their counsel Sh.Ravinder Yadav, Advocate. Petitioner No. 5/complainant is also present. She is identified by her counsel Sh. Vikas Yadav, Advocate.
Parties confirm that the FIR in question is the result of matrimonial discord, which has been amicable settled and now, there is no dispute left.
Petitioner No. 5/complainant confirms that she has entered into an amicable settlement with petitioners No.1 to 4 of her own accord without any inducement or threat from any corner and pursuant to the compromise, petitioners No.1 to 4 have agreed to pay her a sum of ~ 11
--'.
'.
2011:DHC:8766
~
Lakhs besides an FDR of ~ 1,25,000/- in full and final settlement of her claim for 'stree-dhan' as well as past and future maintenance. Out of the said amount, she has already received a sum of ~ 7 Lakhs as well as the
FDR and today, she has received a banker's cheque bearing No. 059003 dated 17.01.2011 for ~ 4 Lakhs as full and final settlement of her claim.
She states that now, there is no dispute left and in view of the settlement, she does not want any action against the petitioners No.1 to 4 on her FIR and that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. She further states that terms of settlement are recorded in the copy of the settlement deed annexed to the petition and the original settlement deed was signed by her as well as the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner no.1 also confirms that the deed of settlement was signed by him.
On perusal of terms of settlement, it transpires that the parties have agreed that these terms of settlement shall bind the minor child Harsh so far as his past and future maintenance is concerned. Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.5, being parents of the minor child Master Harsh, while settling their dispute, have no legal right to restrict the right of minor child to claim maintenance from either of the parents. Both petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.5, when apprised of this fact, agree that they understand that the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties shall not restrict the right of minor child alld child shall be free to claim maintenance, if required, from either of the parents.
Learned APP submits that in view of the nature of offence and the compromise arrived at between the petitioners No. 1 to 4 and the petitioner No. 5/complainant, State has no objection if the FIR a2 as the proceedings arising out of the same is quashed, provided the right of the child be secured.
Since the parties have amicably resolved their matter and now, there is no dispute left, I feel that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the FIR and the proceedings arising out of the same alive.
Accordingly, FIR No. 785/2003, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
It is clarified that the settlement arrived at between the petitioners shall not come in the way of the minor child Harsh to claim maintenance from either of the parents.
JANUARY 18, 2011 akb
~
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
--'.
JUDGMENT