0 #23 26.05.2011 Present: Petitioners in person with Mr.Rakesh Malhotra and Mr.Devinder Singh Khatana, Advocates. Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State/respondent along with (1.0.) S.I. Giriraj Singh, P.S. Badar Pur. Respondent in person. + Crl.M.C. No.2300/2010 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.136/2007 registered under Sections 406/498A/307 /34 IPC P.S. Badar Pur on the complaint of respondent No.2. 2. Ground for seeking quashing is that the FIR is the result of marital discord between the parties which has been amicably settled and terms of settlement have been reduced into writing and signed by petitioner No.1 as well as by respondent No.2. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that in ~ view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, now there is no dispute left. As such, no useful purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioners. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged for quashing of FIR. 3. Petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are identified by the Investigating Officer S.I. Giriraj Singh, P.S. Badarpur. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 4. Petitioner No.l and respondent No.2 confirm that they have voluntard entered into the settlement and signed the Compromise Deed annexed to the petition on each and every page. They further submit that petitioners and respondent No.2 shall abide by the terms of settlement and pursuant to it, petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been withdrawn by respondent No.2. --p- 5. Respondent No.2 confirms that she has entered into a settlement with ~ the petitioners of her own accord without any inducement or threat from any corner. She states that as per the Compromise Deed dated 27th October, 2010, the petitioners have agreed to pay her ~4,00,000/- in full and final settlement of her claims, which has already been paid to her. Respondent No.2 states that terms of Compromise Deed dated 27th October, 2010 was subsequently modified and the petitioners had agreed to pay her ~l,00,000/­ more to compensate her for the burn injuries suffered by her, which amount has been paid to her vide three Pay Orders No.343256, 343257 and 343258 dated 26.5.2011 two for~ 40,000/- each and one for~ 20,000/- respectively drawn on UCO Bank, High Court, Shershah Road, New Delhi. She further submits that in view of the compromise arrived at and the fact that she has been adequately compensated, she does not want the petitioners to be prosecuted on the basis of her FIR and she has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. 6. Mr.Sunil Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State submits that in view of the fact that parties have settled the matter, State has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 7. Since the parties have amicably settled the matter and now there is no dispute left, I feel that no useful purpose shall be served in prosecuting the petitioners on the basis of instant FIR. Accordingly, FIR No.136/2007 'P registered under Sections 406/498A/307 /34 IPC P.S. Badar Pur and the proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. 8. Petition stands disposed of. MAY 26, 2011 ks ~ (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE