Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2876/2023
SH. NISHANT WALIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.D.V.Goyal, Advocate with petitioners in person.
Through: Mr.Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State.
SI Satnarayan, PS Jaitpur.
Mr.M.K.Pervez, Adv. for -2 with R-2 in person.
Date of Decision: 25.04.2023
JUDGMENT
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
1. This is a petition for quashing of case FIR No.0061/2021 dated 08.02.2021 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Jaitpur, South-East Delhi. The said FIR was lodged at the complaint of the respondent No.2/wife.
2. Facts in brief are that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 26.04.2018 as per Hindu rites and customs in Delhi. No child was born out of this wedlock. However, owing to temperamental differences the parties started living separately from August 2020. Thereafter, respondent NO. 2/complainant got registered a complaint before CAW Cell, Niwaspur Delhi which culminated into the present FIR against the petitioners. Chargesheet is stated to have been filed and the matter is pending adjudication before the learned MM, Saket Courts, Delhi.
3. Besides the present FIR, the Respondent. No.2 filed a complaint u/s 12 of DV Act against the petitioners which is pending before the court of Ld. MM, THC, Delhi. It has been submitted that however, while the proceedings were underway the parties amicably settled all their disputes, and it was agreed that the parties will file for mutual divorce.
4. Ld. Counsel submits that the parties have now amicably resolved all their disputes vide Settlement-cum-Compromise Deed dated 11.10.2022 on the following terms and conditions:
5. Ld. Counsel submits that in terms of the above settlement, the parties no longer have any grievance remaining against each other. In terms of settlement, the parties have also been granted divorce by mutual consent vide judgement dated 02.03.2023 of the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Central District, THC, Delhi. Ld. Counsel submits that since parties have settled, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the present complaint. It has been submitted that the petitioner has already paid Rs. 7 lakhs to the respondent No.2/complainant and the remaining Rs. 3 lakhs is to be paid today.
6. 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 02.03.2023. 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 that out of the total settled amount of Rs.10,00,000/- she has already received Rs. 7,00,000/- from the petitioner. She states that the remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been received by her today by way of demand draft bearing DD No.032169 dated 17.04.2023 drawn on Axis Bank in the name of Simran Walia.
7. I have considered the submissions. Divorce by mutual consent has already been granted to the parties. 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. 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.
8. 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.0061/2021 dated 08.02.2021 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Jaitpur, South-East Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 25, 2023