Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 7122/2022
ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Pushpak Jain, Advocate (through VC)
Through: Mr.Amit Sahni, APP for the State.
SI Sartaj, PS Jyoti Nagar Mr.Imran Khan and Mr.Tahir
Hussain, Advocates for R-2.
Date of Decision: 07.02.2023.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 519/2015 registered at PS Jyoti Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and sections 4/5 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 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 02.05.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs in Delhi. No child was born out of this wedlock. Thereafter owing to temperamental differences both the parties started residing separately since 11.01.2015. Consequently, respondent no. 2/complainant lodged a complaint with the CAW Cell, Seema Puri Delhi, basis which the present FIR No. 519/2015 came to be registered against the Petitioners herein. Chargesheet has been filed and the matter is pending adjudication before the learned MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
3. The respondent No. 2/wife filed a petition u/s 13(1)(i-a) of HMA, 1955, for divorce bearing HMA No. 360/2017 and the marriage was dissolved by way of an ex parte decree of divorce by the learned Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara District vide order dated 12.03.2019. The same was accepted by the petitioner No.1.
4. Thereafter, the parties have settled all their disputes amicably on 17.09.2022 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on the following terms and conditions:
5. The petitioners and the complainant/respondent no. 2 are present before this court in person and have been duly identified by the IO. Respondent No.2 has stated that she was married to the petitioner NO. 1 namely Sh. Ishwar Singh on 02.05.2014 and lived together till 11.01.2015. She has stated that no child was born out of wedlock. She has stated that now she has amicably settled all the disputes with the petitioners and wants to put a quietus to the same. She has further stated that she has already received a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- and the remaining sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been handed over in cash today in the court. Both the parties state that the divorce has already been granted. Complainant/respondent no. 2 has stated that she has entered into the settlement voluntarily out of her own free will, without any fear, force or coercion. She has further stated that the petitioners have complied with the terms and conditions of the settlement and therefore, she has no objection if the present FIR and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
6. The disputes between the parties have been settled and continuance of FIR No. 519/2015 would serve no useful purpose and may cause prejudice to the petitioner 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 deed arrived at between the parties voluntarily without any force, fear and coercion. 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/ Ms. Rekha, the case FIR No. 519/2015 registered at PS Jyoti Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and sections 4/5 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 07, 2023 rb..