I I $-25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. wt.c. izq4/2011 & Crl.M.A.Nos.11531-1't532/2o1-t ('.T KLKHURANA&ORS. Through: VCTSUS STATE & ANR. Through: is stated that in placed at Page ..... Petitioners Mr. Karam Bir Singh, Advocate ..... ResPondents Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP SI Amit ChoudharY, P.S'MalviYa Nagar. Ms.Geeta Luthra, Sr.Adv' with Mr. Balender Shekhar, Advocate for the comPlainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K' SI'IALI ORDER 27,Og.Z(JLL This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.479/2007 u/s 323/354/406/4g}^l506l5og/34IPCregisteredwithP.S' Ma|viya Nagar, New De|hi in respect of which tria| is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket District Courts.ThegroundforquashingoftheFlRisthatthe petitionerNo.3,KamalKhurana/husbandandrespondent No.2/complainant have settled all their matrimonial disputes before the Mediation centre vide memorandum of settlement dated 27.03.2010. L; olo 1. .(. H, 2. It is terms of the said settlement, copy of which 42, the parties have obtained divorce on Signing Date:27.08.2024 16:57:17 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 ( \.! \- 3. 27.0L.2011 and the petitioner No.3 was to pay a total sum of Rs.10,50,OOO/- towards the full and final settlement of all the claims of the respondent No.2/complainant and her minor child. It is stated that entire amount has already been paid except an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- which is being paid to the respondent today by way of a bank draft bearing No.520123 dated 06.09.20It drawn on Punjab National Bank in favour of respondent No.2/complainant. It is accordingly prayed that the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate be quashed. The learned counsel has very fairly conceded that in para 1 of the settlement dated 27.03.2010 it has been recorded that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,50,000/- would also encompass future maintenance of the child Baby Khushi Khurana. However, once she attains majority and in case she is entitled to any rights under the existing law, she will be entitled to claim the same from the present petitioner No.3. All the petitioners are present and their affidavits are on record. Learned counsel has identified the petitioners. The respondent No.2/complainant is also present and supports the averments made in the petition. Her affidavit is also on the record. She has been identified by the counsel. She has also I 4. \. \ \ - -/ stated that she has no objection in quashing of th€ FIR and the consequent proceedingS before the trial Court subject to what has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner so far as the future rights of the minor child are concerned. 5. Learned APP also does not have any objection to the quashing of FIR as the matrimonial disputes between the parties have been settled. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts as the petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2/complainant have been divorced by a competent Court and all their disputes have been settled, I feel, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Accordingly, FIR No.479/2007 u/s 323/354/406/498A/506/5Og/34 IPC and the consequent proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are quashed. Parties to bear their own costs. v.K. sHALr, J SEPTEMBER 27, ?OLL mr "> F 6.