Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3599/2022
KULBIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Rachna Jasaiwal and Ms. Anju, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Raguvender Verma, APP for the State and SI Vijay Raj Singh, PS
Patel Nagar.
Mr. Akshay Kumar and Mr. Dhiraj Verma, Advocate for R-2.
Date of Decision: 27.04.2023.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of case FIR No. 414/2017 dated 26.12.2017 registered under sections 498A/406/34 of IPC at PS Patel Nagar. The present FIR was lodged on the statement of respondent no.2/complainant against the petitioners herein.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the son of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2complainant got married on 29.11.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs. No child was born out of the wedlock. However, owing to temperamental differences the respondent No.2/complainant started residing separately from September 2017. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint in CAW Cell, basis which the present FIR came to be registered. However, while the proceedings were underway, the son of petitioner no. 1 i.e. husband of the respondent No.2 expired on 05.05.2020 and his death certificate has also been placed on record. Ld. Counsel submits that the now the parties have voluntarily entered into an amicable settlement vide settlement agreement dated 28.05.2022 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, THC Courts, Delhi on the following terms and conditions:
3. Ld. Counsel submits that since the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and no longer wish to pursue the present complaint, the FIR may be quashed. In terms of the agreement there is no monetary exchange between the parties towards the settlement. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that since the husband of the respondent No.2/complainant has expired and the respondent No.2 has amicably settled the matter with the petitioners, she does not wish to proceed with the present complaint.
4. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the IO. IO has also verified the fact regarding the death of the son of petitioner no.1. Respondent No.2 states that she has resolved all her disputes with the petitioners and has no grievance against the petitioners. She states that she no longer wishes to pursue the present complaint and has no objection if the same is quashed. She states that she has entered into the settlement voluntarily without any fear, force or coercion.
5. I have considered the submissions. The complainant/ respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the present FIR. The chances of conviction would be bleak and remote, given that the complainant does not wish to pursue the present complaint on account of the amicable settlement. Moreover, the husband of the respondent No.2 has already expired. In such circumstances continuance of the present FIR would serve no useful purpose and may cause prejudice to the petitioners 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.
6. 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. 414/2017 dated 26.12.2017 registered under sections 498A/406/34 of IPC at PS Patel Nagar and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 27, 2023