IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Crl.M.C. No.2618/2009 & Crl.M.A. No.8765/2009 Date of decision: 30th July, 2009 Tejpal Garg & Anr. ....Petitioner through: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Adv. for petitioners with petitioners in person. VERSUS State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ....Respondents through: Mr. Deepak, Adv. for respondent no.2 with respondent no.2 in person. Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP for the State SI Veera Singh, PS Krishna Nagar. WITH Crl.M.C. No.1785/2009 Tejpal Garg & Anr. ....Petitioner through: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Adv. for petitioners with petitioners in person. VERSUS State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ....Respondents through: Mr. Deepak, Adv. for respondent no.2 with respondent no.2 in person. Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP for the State SI Veera Singh, PS Krishna Nagar. 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? Contd.....P/2 - 2 - GITA MITTAL, J(Oral) * 1. It appears that the marriage between Tejpal Garg and Kalpana Gupta was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies on 17th November, 2003. These parties resided together as husband and wife till 27th July, 2004. On account of certain disputes and differences arising between them, Kalpana Gupta (arrayed as respondent no.2 in both petitions) filed a private complaint dated 22nd December, 2007 with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District, Delhi against her husband Tejpal Garg, his brother Kishan Pal; mother-in-law Saraswati Devi & Mr. Nitin Mittal, a cousin of her husband. 2. A separate complaint under Section 190 read with section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code was also filed in Karkardooma Court, Delhi seeking direction for registration of a case. Pursuant to the directions made by the trial court on 24th December, 2004, the police station Krishna Nagar registered FIR No.100/2005 under Section 307/315/34 IPC on the 4th March, 2005 against Shri Tejpal Garg and Shri Nitin Mittal. 3. So far as proceedings in these cases are concerned, the police is stated to have filed a chargesheet on 5th March, 2008 and the Contd....P/3 - 3 - case is pending in the Karkardooma court, Delhi. 4. So far as the complaint dated 30th September, 2004 of Smt. Kalpana Gupta is concerned, police station Krishna Nagar registered the same as FIR No.309/2005 on 1st August, 2005 under Sections 498- A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Tejpal Singh, his brother Kishan Pal, mother Saraswati Devi as well as cousin Mr. Nitin Mittal. Chargesheet in this case was filed on 10th December, 2005 and the case is now stated to be pending before Ms. Sunena Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi. These two petitions have been necessitated for the reason that it appears that the parties were referred for mediation to the Mediation Centre at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The parties arrived at settlement on 23rd May, 2009 whereby Kalpana Gupta agreed to receive an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all her claims of stridhan, maintenance & alimony etc. She along with her husband agreed to seek dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent and parties also agreed to bring a quietus to the dispute by seeking quashing of the pending criminal prosecution. 5. In this background, Shri Tejpal Garg and Shri Nitin Mittal have filed Crl.M.(Main) No.152/2009 seeking quashing of the proceedings Contd......P/4 - 4 - arising out of FIR No.100/2005. 6. Shri Tejpal Garg and Shri Nitin Mittal along with Shri Kishan Pal and Smt. Saraswati Devi filed Crl.M. (Main) No.2618/2009 seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No.309/2005. Inasmuch as both cases raise identical questions of law and facts. They are taken together for disposal. 7. Shri Tejpal Garg, Shri Kishan Pal as well as Ms.Kalpana Gupta are present in court. The investigating officer Neera Singh is present who identified the parties. The parties affirm the settlement arrived at before the Mediation Centre on 23rd May, 2009 which has been placed before this court. The respondent no.2 submits that out of a total sum of Rs.13,00,000/-, she has already received a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. The balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is payable. 8. The petitioner no.1 as well as the petitioner nos.2 to 4 in Crl.M.(Main) No.2618/2009 make a prayer that in view of the above, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal prosecution pending. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over the balance amount by way of a bank draft in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Contd....P/5 - 5 - respondent no.2 undertakes that she will abide by Clause 2 of the settlement and that she shall have this amount deposited in a fixed deposit receipt in the name of her minor daughter baby Saniya. 10. As agreed between the parties, baby Sanya will remain in the absolute and exclusive custody and guardianship of Smt. Kalpana Gupta. The parties shall remain bound by this settlement without any interference from any of the petitioners. 11. The parties have placed a photocopy of the decree dated 22nd July, 2009 passed by Shri Nikhil Chopra, ADJ in HMA No.73/2009 whereby the marriage between Shri Tejpal Garg and Smt. Kalpana Gupta stands dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 12. The respondent no.2 is also present and submits that she has to raise the minor child singlehandedly and in view of the settlement, does not wish to prosecute the two cases any further. A prayer is made by and on her behalf that a quietus be brought to her so that she can get on with her life. 13. On a consideration of the above, it would appear that the settlement arrived at between the parties has been reached voluntarily without any kind of force, pressure and is bona fide. The Contd.....P/6 - 6 - petitioners appear to have made arrangement for the minor daughter of the respondent no.2 who is to be in the exclusive and absolute guardianship of the mother. The petitioners also states that in view of the settlement arrived at before the Mediation Centre and in view of the dissolution of the marriage, they have no other or further claim against the respondent no.2 or any of her family members. 14. A prayer is made seeking quashing of the prosecution before this court which appears to be bona fide and in the interest of the petitioners as well as society. The dispute between the parties arose out of matrimonial matters and primarily of a private nature. The parties deserve to be permitted to carry on with their lives without the rigors of criminal prosecution hanging over them. In this view of the matter, it is directed that the prosecution arising out of FIR No.309/2005 registered by Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and FIR No.100/2005 registered by police station Krishna Nagar, Delhi under Sections 307/31/34 IPC shall hereby stand quashed. Dasti. July 30, 2009 Gita Mittal, J. aa