Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 5906/2022, CRL.M.A. 23172/2022
PAWAN KUMAR AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Deep Chand Akarniya, Adv. with Petitioners in person.
Through: Mr. Amit Sahni, APP and SI Dinesh, PS Nangloi, Delhi.
Respondent in person.
Date of Decision: 17.08.2023.
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of case FIR No. 256/2016 dated 27.05.2016 registered under sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Nangloi and the subsequent 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 05.12.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. No child was born out of the wedlock. Thereafter, owing to temperamental differences the parties started residing separately since 02.09.2015. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the CAW Cell which culminated into the present FIR against the petitioners herein. Chargesheet is stated to have been filed and the matter is pending adjudication before the Ld. MM, THC, Delhi.
3. It has been submitted that while the proceedings were underway, the parties were referred to the Counselling Cell, Family Courts, whereby, the parties amicably and voluntarily settled all their disputes on 15.10.2018 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 Courts, THC Courts, Delhi, vide judgement dated 13.03.2019. As per the settlement, the petitioner has already given the articles i.e. 2 gold rings to the respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement. Ld. Counsel submits that the parties have voluntarily settled the matter without any monetary consideration. Ld. Counsel further submits that the other pending litigations between the parties such as the complaint case under DV Act and the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. have also been withdrawn. It has been submitted 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 05.12.2014 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 13.03.2019. She states that she has voluntarily settled the matter with the petitioners vide Settlement Agreement dated 15.10.2018 without 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 given her the articles i.e. Two Gold rings and that no further monetary exchange is to take place. She states that she has no remaining grievance against the petitioners and no longer wishes to pursue the present complaint.
6. I have considered the submissions. The parties have already been granted divorce vide judgement dated 13.03.2019 and have amicably and voluntarily settled all their disputes vide Settlement Agreement dated 15.10.2018. Respondent No. 2 has stated that she no longer wishes to pursue the present FIR. 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 the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions of the respondent no.2, the case FIR NO. 256/2016 dated 27.05.2016 registered under sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Nangloi and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J AUGUST 17, 2023