Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2368/2022
SAMIR KHAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohit Mudgal, Mr. Sandeep, Ms.Pavitra Bawa, Advs.
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State with Inspector Seema Yadav, PS
Tuglak Road.
Mr. K. K. Jha and Mr.Manish Kumar, Advs. for R-2.
Date of Decision: 16th January, 2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 27/2009 under Sections 498/406/34 IPC registered at PS Tughlak Road, New Delhi. The said FIR was lodged at the instance of the respondent No.2/complainant.
2. Facts in brief are that the marriage between Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 08.01.2008 as per Muslim rites and rituals at Delhi. No child was born out of this wedlock. Thereafter owing to temperamental differences both the parties started residing separately since 18.09.2008. Consequently, respondent no. 2/complainant lodged the present FIR against the Petitioners herein.
3. It has been submitted that Chargesheet in the present case has been filed. Charges have been framed and the matter is pending before the learned MM Court at the stage of prosecution evidence. During the proceedings, the matter was referred to mediation, whereby, the parties entered into a settlement at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Patiala House Court, New Delhi on 31.01.2017 on the following terms and conditions:
4. The marriage between the parties has also been dissolved vide decree of divorce under Section 2 (iv) & 2 (viii-a) of the Muslim Marriage Act dated 22.02.2020.
5. In pursuance of the settlement, the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/has also been paid by way of demand draft bearing No. 269802 dated 21.11.2022 drawn on Citi Bank.
6. The petitioners and the complainant/respondent no. 2 are present before this court in person and have been duly identified by the IO. The respondent No. 2 states that she has entered into the settlement voluntarily out of her own free will, without any fear, force or coercion. Respondent No.2 further states 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.
7. The dispute between the parties have been settled and continuance of FIR No. 27/2009 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. 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. (Refer 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 to prevent abuse of the power of the Court and secure the ends of justice the FIR No. 27/2009 registered at PS Tughlak Road, New Delhi under Sections 498/406/34 IPC and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J JANUARY 16, 2023