#13 22.12.2010 Present: Petitioners in person witin Sliri R.L. Sharma, Advocate. ivir. R.N. Vats, Advocate for the State/respondent No.l along with 10 SI Ram Nivas, CAW Cell, North-East Distt. Respondent No.2 in person with Mohd. Ayub Bharti, Advocate. +Crl.M.A. No.l8827/2010(exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. Crl.M.C.No.3954/2010 This is a petition seeking quashing of the FIR No.341/2007 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Shahdara on the complaint of respondent No.2. The ground for seeking quashing is that parties have amicably settled the matter and the terms of settlement are detailed in copy of the compromise deed annexed with the petition at page 43. r$ . Petitioners are present. They are identified by their counsel Shri R.L. Sharma, Advocate. Respondent No.2 is present. She is identified by her counsel Mohd. Ayub Bharti, Advocate as well as 10 SI Ram Nivas, CAW Cell, North-East Distt. 4r- Parties confirm that they have arrived at the settlement and they actually signed the original of the compromise deed dated 18.10.2010 and that in terms of compromise, parties have taken divorce and the petitioners had agreed to pay a sum of ?1 lakh to respondent No.2 in full Signing Date:05.08.2024 16:58:50 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified and final settlement of her claim, out of which ^50,000/- has already been paid to her and ?50,000/- is paid in court today. They also state that now the petitioners and respondent No.2 have no claim left towards each other and that the custody of the minor child of petitioner Nol and respondent No.2 shall remain with respondent No.2 and petitioner No.l shall not file any claim in any court seei<ing custody of the child. Petitioner No.l states that this compromise arrived at between petitioner No.l and respondent ^ No.2 shall not come in the way of the minor child to seek maintenance from either of the parents depending their financial capacity. Respondent No.2 submits that she has arrived at the aforesaid settlement incorporated in the compromise deed without any inducement or threat from any corner and that now there is no dispute left between the parties. She further states that in the interest of amicable harmonious relationship between the parties, she does not want any action against the petitioners on her FIR and she has no objection if the FIR and the 4r proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Learned APP for the State submits that the State has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Since the parties have arrived at a mutual settlement, I feel that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the FIR and the proceedings emanating from the same alive. Therefore, the FIR No.341/2007 registered at P.S. Shahdara and the proceedings emanating of the same are quashed. Parties shall be bound by the terms of settlement and it is clarifiec that the settlement arrived at between petitioner No.l and respondent / No.2 shall not in any manner affect the right of the minor child to claim / maintenance from either of the parents. Petition stands disposed of. VV- (AJIT bYIARIHOKE) JUDGE DECEMBER 22, 2010 pst