Vaibhav Upadhyay & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 575/2015 registered at PS Welcome under sections 498A/406/34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the parties got married on 28.11.2014 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, the marriage could not succeed and due to temperamental differences and misunderstanding with each other the parties started living separately since 18.04.2015. The above-mentioned FIR was lodged on the basis of complaint made by Respondent No.2/complainant as a result of temperamental differences in the matrimonial home. Charge-sheet was also filed. The Ld. MM vide order dated 05.04.2017 discharged Petitioner No.2 (mother-inlaw) and Petitioner No.3 (sister-in-law) of the complainant/Respondent No.2.

3. However, now the parties state that they have amicably settled the matter vide MOU/Settlement deed dated 13.11.2019. The terms and conditions of the settlement deed are as follows: -

(i) That the first motion petition shall be filed under section 13-B(1) before the Family Court Delhi within 15 days of signing of the present MOU.

(ii) That the second party shall not pay any amount for full and final settlement to the first party and the first party has no objection to it and the First party shall not claim any money as an alimony, or maintenance in the future.

(iii) That since the second party has already taken her gold, furniture etc. from the first party, which was given and taken at the time of marriage and the second party will not claim any istridhan from the first party in future as the same either has already been return to second party by the first party or the second party already has her istridhan in her possession.”

4. It is submitted that the decree of divorce by mutual consent has been granted vide order dated 25.02.2020. There is no child born out of this wedlock.

5. It is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash noncompoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be placed upon: 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. Both parties are present in court and have duly been identified by the IO. Respondent no. 2 submits that she has entered the settlement voluntarily without any fear, force or coercion.

7. I consider that there would be no purpose of continuing with the proceedings. It was a matrimonial dispute which has been amicably settled and thus the parties should be given a chance to move on with their lives.

8. In view of the above the case FIR no. 575/2015 registered at PS Welcome under sections 498A/406/34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 22, 2023