Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 5648/2023
UMANG DUREJA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bhupinder Mehtani and Ms. Kritika Mehtani, Advs. (VC).
Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP and SI Gagandeep, PS Prashant Vihar.
Mr. S. S. Raghav and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advs for R-2.
Date of Decision: 10.08.2023.
JUDGMENT
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
1. Present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. r/w Article 227 of COI seeking quashing of case FIR No. 0271/2022 dated 25.03.2022 registered under sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Prashant Vihar and proceedings emanating therefrom. The said FIR was lodged on the complaint of the respondent No. 2/ wife.
2. Facts in brief are that the marriage between the petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No. 2/wife was solemnized on 17.07.2021 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Delhi. No child was born out of the wedlock. Thereafter, temperamental differences started erupting between the parties. Consequently, respondent No. 2 got registered the present FIR against the petitioners herein.
3. It has been submitted that while the proceedings were underway, with the intervention of friends and family members, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement vide Compromise Deed dated 27.07.2022 on the following terms and conditions:
4. Ld. Counsel submits that in terms of the above settlement the parties have already been granted divorce by mutual consent by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi, vide judgement dated 24.04.2023.Ld. Counsel submits that out of the total settled amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- the petitioner has already paid Rs. 5,00,000/to the respondent No. 2 and the remaining Rs. 2,00,000/- is to be paid today. Ld. Counsel submits that the present FIR stems from a matrimonial dispute which stands amicable settled and therefore no useful purpose would be served if the present complaint is kept pending.
5. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the IO. Respondent No. 2 states that she was married to the petitioner No.1 on 17.07.2021 and no child was born out of the wedlock. She states that the parties have already been granted divorce by mutual consent vide judgement dated 24.04.2023. She states that she has voluntarily settled the matter with the petitioners vide Compromise Deed dated 27.07.2022without any fear, force or coercion and has no objection if the present FIR and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. An affidavit of no objection has also been filed on behalf of her along with the present petition. She further states that in terms of the settlement the petitioner No.1 has already paid her Rs. 5,00,000/- and the remaining Rs. 2,00,000/- has been handed over in the court today by way of demand draft bearingDD No. 510475 dated 26.05.2023 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) drawn from ICICI Bank in the name of Isha Khanna. She states that she has thus received the entire settled amount and has no more grievances against the petitioners.
6. I have considered the submissions. The parties have already been granted divorce vide judgement dated 24.04.2023 and have amicably and voluntarily settled all their disputes vide Compromise Deed dated 27.07.2022. Respondent No. 2 has stated that she no longer wishes to pursue the present FIR. In such circumstances, the chances of conviction would be bleak given that the complainant does not wish to pursue the present complaint on account of the amicable settlement. In such circumstances continuance of the present FIR would serve no useful purpose and may cause prejudice to the petitioner and be an exercise in futility. I do not see any reason to reject the settlement. This court considers that it is better to put a quietus to the dispute in matrimonial matters where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have amicably resolved their entire dispute. The Supreme Court and this Court have time and again held that cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to quietus if the parties have arrived upon a genuine settlement. Reliance can be placed on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226; Yashpal Chaudhrani and Others vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179.
7. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions of respondent no.2, the case FIR NO. 0271/2022 dated 25.03.2022 registered under sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Prashant Vihar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J AUGUST 10, 2023