Manjeet Patwa v. State & Anr.

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 245/2018 dated 06.06.2018 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Mundka. The said FIR was lodged at the complaint of the respondent No.2/wife.

2. Facts in brief are that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 namely Mr. Manjeet Patwa and Respondent No.2/complainant was VERMA solemnized on 07.07.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. One child namely Arijit Patwa was born out of this wedlock. Thereafter owing to temperamental differences the marriage between the parties could not succeed and as a result the respondent No.2/complainant went back to her parental home and started residing there. Thus, the parties started residing separately from 03.04.2017.

3. Consequently, respondent no. 2/complainant lodged the present FIR dated 06.06.2018 against the petitioners. It has been submitted that the Chargesheet has been filed and charges have been framed and the matter is pending adjudication before the Ld. MM. (Mahila) West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

4. However, with the intervention of family members and wellwishers both the parties amicably settled all their disputes before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi by way of a settlement deed dated 18.10.2021 on the following terms and conditions:

5. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the aforesaid settlement deed dated 18.10.2021, the parties moved the concerned court seeking divorce by way of mutual consent which was granted vide judgement dated 26.05.2022 by the Ld. Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

6. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the IO. Respondent No. 2/complainant states she was married to the petitioner No. 1 namely Manjeet on 07.07.2014. One child namely Master Arijit Patwa was born out of the wedlock, who is in care and custody of the petitioner/husband. She has stated that the marriage between her and petitioner No.1 was dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 26.05.2022. She VERMA has stated that as per the settlement agreement it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner No.1 will pay her Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the full and final settlement of all her claims including istridhan, maintenance (present, past and future) and permanent alimony, marriage articles/jewellery etc. It was agreed that the same will be paid in three instalments. She has stated that she has already received Rs. 83,000/- at the time of recording of statements in first motion for mutual divorce, Rs. 83,000/- at the time of recording of statements in second motion for mutual divorce. She states that the remaining amount of Rs. 84,000/- had also been handed over to her by way of DD No. 341062 dated 18.10.2023 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Nangloi on the last date of hearing i.e. 03.02.2023 before this Court. She states that the permanent custody of the child namely Master Arijit Patwa will remain with the petitioner and she will not claim custody/visitation rights of the child. She has stated that she has no objection if FIR No. 245/2018 registered at PS Mundka, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. She has stated that she is making the statement voluntarily against all claims (past, present and future) without any fear, force, undue influence or coercion.

7. It has also been submitted by both the parties that that the rights and interests of the child namely Master Arijit Patwa shall not be affected by VERMA the settlement arrived at between the parties. It has been stated that the Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2/complainant have also filed an affidavit in terms of the order of this Court dated 03.02.2023, specifically stating therein, that the rights of the child/issue namely Master Arijit Patwa born out of the said wedlock will not be affected in any manner by the settlement deed arrived at between the parties.

8. The dispute between the parties have been settled and continuance of FIR No. 245/2018 would serve no useful purpose and may cause prejudice to the petitioners and be an exercise in futility. The chances of conviction would also be bleak and remote, given that the parties do not wish to pursue the present complaint on account of the settlement. I do not see any reason to reject the settlement. Moreover, the parties have already been granted decree of divorce dissolving their marriage. This court considers that it is better to put a quietus to the dispute in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties voluntarily. The Supreme Court and this Court have time and again held that cases arising out of matrimonial disputes 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.