Suresh Malhotra & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.47/1996 lodged by Mr. Deepak Naurang, brother of respondent No.2, former wife of the petitioner No.l, against petitioner No.l and his family members, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered with PS Connaught Place, Delhi, and all proceedings arising therefrom.

2. It is the case of the parties that the marriage of petitioner No.l and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 12.5.1989. From out of the wedlock, one male child, namely, Nipun Malhotra, was born, who is now a major and is residing with the petitioners. It is stated that till CRL.M.C. 3878/2010 2010:DHC:9312 13.1.1996, the parties were residing together as husband and wife, but thereafter, they parted company and started living separately. On 17.1.1996, Mr. Deepak Naurang, brother of respondent No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint against the petitioners.

3. Counsel for the petitioners states that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the parties volunteered to approach the Mediation Cell, Tis Hazari Courts, for exploring the possibility of arriving at a negotiated settlement. Pursuant thereto, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement, terms and conditions of which are recorded in the proceedings dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure-B). It is stated that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, it was agreed that petitioner No.l would pay a sum of ?10.00 lacs to respondent No.2 in full and final settlement of all her claims against the petitioners.

4. It is stated that while a sum of ?6.00 lacs has already been paid to respondent No.2, counsel for the petitioners hands over to respondent No.2, a Demand Draft bearing No.560125 dated 13.9.2010 drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, SPM College, Punjabi Bagh (W), New Delhi, for the sum of ^4.00 lacs, which has been duly accepted by her, through counsel. It was further agreed that both the parties would approach the concerned court for seeking divorce by mutual consent. Pursuant thereto, a joint application for divorce by mutual consent was filed and a decree of divorce was passed on 4.8.2010 (Annexure-D). It is now stated that nothing further is due or payable by the petitioners to respondent No.2 and that the present FIR may be quashed.

5. Respondent No.2, who is present in Court with her brother/complainant and is represented through counsel, confirms the aforesaid position and states that she has arrived at the aforesaid settlement with the petitioners of her own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarter. Mr. Deepak Naurang/complainant, who is also present in person, states that in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, he has no objection to quashing of the aforesaid FIR lodged by him.

6. Learned APR for the State states, on instruction from the Investigating Officer, that after investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed in the court on 10.5.1998 and the matter is at the stage of recording of evidence. He confirms the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement and now they are living separately. He, therefore, does not oppose the prayer made in the present petition. k

7. This Court has heard counsels for the parties. In view of the submission made by respondent No.2 and Mr. Deepak Naurang/compiainant and in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarter, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.

8. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition is allowed and FIR No.47/1996 lodged by Mr. Deepak Naurang/compiainant with PS Connaught Place, Delhi, and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

9. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application. File be consigned to the record room.

DECEMBER 15, 2010 sk HIMA KOHLI,J