Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1629/2023
KULDEEP SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Chandrakant Tiwari, Adv.
Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for the State and SI Manju Yadav, PS Tilak
Nagar.
Mr. Anish Roy, Adv.
Date of Decision: 30.05.2023.
JUDGMENT
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC seeking quashing of case FIR No. 552/2022 dated 06.08.2022 registered under sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Tilak Nagar. The said FIR was lodged on the complaint of respondent No.2/wife against the petitioners herein.
2. Facts in brief are that the marriage between petitioner No. 1/husband and respondent No. 2/complainant - wife was solemnized on 29.09.2019 as per Sikh rites and rituals at Haryana. No child was born out of the wedlock. Thereafter owing to temperamental differences both the parties started residing separately since 16.06.2021. Consequently, respondent NO. 2/complainant filed a complaint before CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar, Delhi basis which the present FIR came to be lodged against the petitioners herein. The respondent No.2/complainant also filed a complaint under section 12, DV Act against the petitioner No.1.
3. It has been submitted that while the proceedings were underway with the intervention of family members and well-wishers the parties entered into a settlement on 13.03.2023 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, THC, Delhi on the following terms and conditions:
4. Ld. Counsel submits that in terms of the above settlement, the parties no longer have any grievance remaining against each other. The parties have also been granted divorce by mutual consent vide judgement dated 04.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Judge, Family Courts, THC, Delhi. It has been submitted that out of the total settled amount of Rs.3,20,000/- the petitioner has already paid Rs. 2,20,000/- to the respondent No.2/complainant and the remaining Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be paid today. Ld. Counsel submits that since parties have amicably settled thus no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the present complaint.
5. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the IO. Respondent No.2/complainant states she has resolved all her disputes with the petitioners and has no grievance against the petitioners. She states that the parties have already been granted mutual divorce vide judgement dated 04.05.2023. She states that she no longer wishes to pursue the present complaint and has no objection if the same is quashed. Both the parties have stated that they have entered into the settlement voluntarily without any fear, force or coercion. She states in terms of the settlement, out of the total settled amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- she has already received Rs. 2,20,000/from the petitioners. She states that the remaining amount has been handed over to her today in court by way of demand draft bearing DD No. 593297 dated 19.05.2023 in the name of Amandeep Kaur for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) drawn from Punjab and Sind Bank. She states that in terms of the settlement she has received the entire settled amount.
6. I have considered the submissions. The parties have amicably settled all their disputes and have been granted divorce by mutual consent. The complainant/ respondent No.2 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 compromise. 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/ complainant, the case FIR NO. 552/2022 dated 06.08.2022 registered under sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Tilak Nagar and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MAY 30, 2023