54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 1190/2011 SANDEEP RAJ & ORS Petitioners Tiirough : Mr. Amit Kumar Cliauclliary, Adv. witln petitioners in person. versus STATE &ANR Respondents Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State with Investigating Officer. Mr. inder Bhushan, Adv. for R-2 with respondent No.2/compIainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER % 07.04.2011 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.343/2006 lodged by respondent No.2/complainant, against her husband, petitioner No.l, and his family members, petitioners No.2 to 4, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered with PS Dwarka, Delhi, and all proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the marriage of petitioner No.l and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized on 11.5.2005. However, there is no issue born from out of the wedlock. Thereafter, CRL.M.C. 1190/2011 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:17.08.2024 17:00:37 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 . / due to certain disputes and differences wliich arose between petitioner No.l and respondent No.2/complainant, they started living separately since 18.10.2005. On 25.12.2005, respondent No.2/complainant lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioners, on the basis of which, the aforesaid FIR was registered on 18.4.2006. 3. Counsel for the petitioners states that after completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed and the matter is pending for recording of prosecution evidence. It is stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement with the intervention of the Counseling Cell, Family Courts, Dwarka, Delhi, as recorded in the proceedings dated 1.2.2011 (Annexure P-1). He submits that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, petitioner No.l has agreed to pay a sum of ?2.75 lacs to respondent No.2/complainant in full and final settlement of all her claims against the petitioners. It is stated that out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of ^1.00 lac was paid to respondent No.2/complainant at the time of filing of a joint application for grant of divorce by mutual consent. It is submitted that the first motion was recorded on 10.2.2010 (Annexure P-3). He states that today he has brought a Bankers Cheque No.784126 dated 25.3.2011 drawn on Corporation Bank, Bavana, Delhi, for the sum of^l.OO lac in CRL.M.C. 1190/2011 Page 2 of 4 favour of respondent No.2/complainant, and he hands over the same to respondent No.2/complainant, through counsel, which is duly accepted by her. He further states that the remaining sum of ?75,000/- has been agreed to be paid to respondent No.2/complainant immediately upon the second motion for grant of divorce by mutual consent being allowed, for which an appropriate application shall be filed by the parties after expiry of six months from 10.2.2011. He therefore submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the present FIR may be quashed. 4. Respondent No.2/complainant, who is present in Court and is duly represented through counsel, confirms the aforesaid position. She further confirms the fact that first motion for grant of divorce by mutual consent has been recorded and that the she has received a sum of ?2.00 lacs from petitioner No.l and the remaining sum of ^75,000/- has been agreed to be received by her at the time of allowing the second motion for grant of divorce by mutual consent, in terms of the aforesaid settlement. She states that she has arrived at the aforesaid settlement with the petitioners of her own free will and volition and without any undue Influence or coercion from any quarter. She further states that in view of the settlement arrived at between CRLM.C. 1190/2011 Page 3 of 4 the parties, she has no objection to quashing of the aforesaid FIR lodged by her. 5. Learned APP for the State, on instruction from the Investigating Officer, confirms the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement. He, therefore, does not oppose the prayer made In the present petition. 6. This Court has heard counsels for the parties. In view of the submission made by respondent No.2/complainant and in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any . quarter, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. 7. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition is allowed and FIR No.343/2006 lodged by the respondent No.2/comp!ainant with PS Dwarka, Delhi and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. \ j 8. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. HIMA KOHLI,J APRIL 07, 2011 sk CRL.M.C. 1190/2011 Page4of4 V/1