99 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI cRL. M.C. 3sB9/20t0 .Y ATUL KUMAR SEHGAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sunil Choudhary, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ...,. Respondents Through: Mr. H.S.Dhillon, Advocate for R-2 along with respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER o/o 19.11.2010 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. praying, inter alia for quashing of FIR No. 352/2009 lodged by the respondent No. 2 wife of the petitioner uls 498A/406/34 IPC registered with P.S. Shahdara. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 27/02/2009 in J i accordance with Hindu Rites. Thereafter within one month of the marriage, due to irreconcilable difference they parted company. On 04.It.2OOg, with the intervention of the Mediation Cell of *akardooma : cRL.M.C.35B9/2010 Page No.1 of 3 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 \ J' Court, the parties have arrived at a settlement. It is stated that, in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of tl lac to respondent No.2/complainant in two installments. The said amount has been agreed to be paid in view of the settlement reached by the parties, pursuant to which the decree of divorce has been passed, on the'basis of the joint petition for mutual divorce filed by the parties. A copy of the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2010 in placed on record and marked as annexure B. 3. Counsel for respondent No.2/complainant confirms the aforesaid position. He states that respondent No.2/complainant has received the entire sum of t1 lac from the petitioner and nothing further is due and payable by the petitioner to respondent No.2. He further states that the respondent No.2/complainant has no objection to the FIR 'being quashed. 4. Learned APP for the State submits that after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. However, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection to the [1 i prayer made in the present petition being allowed. 5. This Court has heard counsels for the parties. In view of the submission made by respondent No.2/complainant and in view of cRL.M.C. 3sB9/20t0 Page No.2 of 3 a\ the fact that the parties have arrived at a will and volition and without any ! settlement of their own free undue influence or coercion fromanyquarters,nousefu|purpoSewi||beservedbyproceeaing..-.,/ P' further with the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising therefiom. 6. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition is allowed. FIR No.352/2009, lodged by respondent No.2 with Police Station: ( Shahdara, Delhi, and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 7. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. NOVEMBER 19, 2O1O mr cRL.M.C. 3589/20L0 Page No.3 of 3 ry HIMA KOHLI, J C a