Full Text
CRL.M.C. 2348/2018
ABHISHEKVERMA&QRS Petitioners
Through Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
Through Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
Insp. Sanjay Verma, PS Saket.
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate for the complainant. r.-r,T SINitesh Sharma, PS Saket.
AJAYBHATIA&ORS petitioners
Through Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
Through Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
Insp. Sanjay Verma, PS Saket.
04.05.2018 CrI.M.A.8347/2018 (exemption) in CRIvM.C. 2348/201S
Crl.M.A.8376/2018 (exemption) in CRL.M.C. 2353/2018
Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.A.8346/2018 (stay) & CRT M r 2353/2018 & Crl.M.A.S375/2018 (sta^
ORDER
1. The petitioners in Crl. M.C. 2348/2018 seek quashing of FIR No.439/2016 under Sections 323/341/328/354/506/509/511/34 IPC, CRL.M.C. 2348/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2353/2018, 2018:DHC:8456 Police Station Saket. The petitioners in Crl. M.C.2353/2018 seek quashing of FIR No.440/2016 under Sections 323/354/509/34 IPC, Police Station Saket. The subject FIRs are cross-FIRs.
2. The subject FIR emanates out ofmatrimonial discord. Petitioner No.l in Crl. M.C. 2348/2018 is the husband of respondent No.2 (Complainant). Petitioner No.2 is the sister of the petitioner No.l. In Crl.M.C.2353/2018: PetitionerNos.l and 2are the parents ofrespondent No.2/complainant in Crl.M.C.2348/2018 and the respondent No.2/Complainant in Crl.M.C.2353/2018 is the petitioner No.2 in Crl.M.C.2348/2018.
3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have settled their disputes and a settlement agreement dated 06.01.2018 has been executed between the parties., The concerned parties have already applied for divorce by mutual consent and First Motion petition has been filed.
4. The respondent No.2 was to be paid atotal sum ofRs.15,00,000/in full and final settlement of all her claims by the petitioner No.l in Crl.M.C.2348/2018. Out ofthe said amount, Rs.9,00,000/- has already been paid. The balance sum ofRs.6,00,000/- is to be paid at the time of the Second Motion.
5. As per the settlement, the permanent custody of the minor child bom out of the wedlock is to remain with the respondent No.2 mother. The petitioner No.l - father, who is present in Court in person, undertakes that he shall not claim any rights contrary to the settlement agreement between the parties. The undertaking is accepted. CRL.M.C. 2348/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2353/2018
6. Therespective complainants arepresent inperson, represented by counsel and identified by the Investigating Officer. They submits that they have settled their disputes with the petitioners and do not wish to press charges agamst the petitioners and prosecute the complaint any further. V- In view of the fact that the proceedings emanate out of a matrimonial discord and the parties have fully and finally settled their disputes and the respondent No.2 has stated that she does not wish to press the complaint any further and the fact that the concerned paities have already applied for divorce by mutual consent, continuation of crmiinal proceedings will be an exercise in futility andjustice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace IS restored; securing the ends ofjustice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
8. In view of the above. FIR No.439/2016 under Sections 323/341/328/354/506/509/511/34 IPC, Police Station Saket and FIR No.440/2016 under Sections 323/354/509/34 IPC, Police Station Saket and the consequentproceedings emanating there from are quashed.
9. Order Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master. (T may 04,2018 »>ANJ1®VSACHDEVA,J St