Sandeep Kansal & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi High Court · 13 Feb 2023 · 2023:DHC:1431
Dinesh Kumar Sharma
CRL.M.C. 6974/2022
2023:DHC:1431
criminal petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR arising from matrimonial disputes upon the parties' amicable settlement, emphasizing the court's power to end criminal proceedings in such cases.

Full Text
Translation output
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001431
CRL.M.C. 6974/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 6974/2022
SANDEEP KANSAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bhagat Singh, Advocate with petitioner No.1 in person.
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State with Inspr. Rajiv Gulati, PS EOW.
Respondent No.1 in person.
Date of Decision: 13th February, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.
(Oral)
CRL.M.A.27012/2022 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C.6974/2022

1. Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.322/2007 under Sections 420/467/468/471/201/120B IPC registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony seeking following prayer:- “a) Quash FIR NO. 322/2007 registered with Police Station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, under section 420 /467 /468/ 471/ 201/ 120B IPC; b) Quash all consequential. incidental and other proceedings which are emanating out of FIR no. 322/2007and/or pending in furtherance thereto;.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife and after around 20 years of marriage in the year 2006-07, some matrimonial disputes arose between them which led to the filing of civil cases against each other. The disputes primarily revolve around the family business. However, now the parties have settled all their disputes vide settlement deed dated 30.11.2020.He submits that there were around 8 litigations between the parties and all other litigations except the present FIR have already been settled/quashed/withdrawn and therefore prays that the present FIR and all other proceedings therefrom may also be quashed.

3. Petitioner No.1 Sandeep Kansal, Company Secretary is present in person. Petitioner No.2 is stated to be quite unwell as well asbedridden and is therefore appearing through video conferencing. Petitioner No.3 Rajat Jindal is also appearing through video conferencing.

4. Respondent No.2 is present in person and has duly been identified by the Investigating Officer. She submits that she has already joined the matrimonial home and all the disputes between the parties are settled. She states that the petition filed before the NCLT regarding the present dispute has also been settled and withdrawn vide order dated 25.02.2021.

5. Since it was a matrimonial dispute which gave rise to several other disputes between the parties and now since the parties have settled the disputes amongst themselves, ends of justice would be met if the present FIR No.322/2007 under Sections 420/467/468/471/201/120B IPC registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.The 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 on 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 and Jasmair Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana and Another (2022) 9 SCC 73

6. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances, the case FIR No.322/2007 under Sections 420/467/468/471/201/120B IPC registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. The present petition stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 13, 2023