IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI + W.P.(Crl).No. 963/2009 Date of decision: 12th August, 2009 Sh. Rajesh & Anr. ... Petitioner through: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Chauhan, Adv. for petitioners with petitioners in person VERSUS State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. ....Respondents through: Mr. Piyush Singh for Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Addl. Standing Counsel for the state with ASI Mahender Singh from PS Timar Pur Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Adv. for the respondent with respondent no. 2 and her mother Smt. Meena Devi CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL, J(Oral) 1. By this petition, Sh. Rajesh, petitioner no. 1 and his mother Smt. Kanta who is petitioner no. 2 pray for quashing of the FIR No. 409/2005 registered by police station Timarpur u/s 406/498A/328/34 of the IPC. 2. It is stated that a marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites and ceremonies between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 on 29th November, 2004 at Delhi. On account of differences between the - 2 - petitioners and the respondent no. 2, she started living separately from them since 28th August, 2005. A complaint was also lodged by the respondent no.2 which was registered as FIR No. 409/05 by the police station Timarpur u/s 406/498A/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet stands filed and the case is stated to be pending in the court of Sh. Alok Aggarwal, ASJ, Delhi. 3. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 are present and are identified by counsel. They submit that they have fully and finally resolved all disputes. The respondent no. 2 has states that she has received her articles of stridhan as well as all amounts towards maintenance and alimony and that she has no other or further claim against the petitioners of any kind. 4. It is submitted by the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 that the marriage of the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 24th February, 2009 passed in HMA No. 32/2009. It is prayed that in view thereof, the respondent no. 2 does not wish to prosecute the complaint lodged by her. The petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are stated to be young in age. 5. I have considered the prayers made by the parties. In the aforenoticed facts there remains no manner of doubt that the - 3 - proceedings were initiated on a complaint lodged by the respondent no. 2 arising out of matrimonial disputes and differences. The disputes were of a private nature. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a mutual settlement and have agreed to settle all their disputes and differences finally. Respondent no. 2 has received an amount towards her claims of maintenance and alimony and the relationship between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent no. 2 stands snapped by the decree of divorce. The request of the petitioners that they be permitted therefore to get on in life without the interdiction of the criminal prosecution deserves to be accepted. The same would be in the interest of justice as well as societal interest having regard to the ages of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2. 6. In this view of the matter, it is directed that all proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 409/2005 registered by police station Timarpur u/s 406/498A/328/34 of the IPC shall stand quashed. This petition is allowed in the above terms. Dasti to parties. August 12, 2009 Gita Mittal, J. kr