#17 25.02.2011 Present: Petitioners in person with Mr.P.Maheshwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Santosh Kohli, APP for the State/respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 in person with Mr. Parveen Asiwal, Advocate. +Crl.M.C. 3865/2010 & Crl.M.A. 18488/2010 (stay) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seel<ing quashing of FIR No. 103/2008, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG registered at P.S. Pratap Nagar on the complaint of the respondent No.2. Ground for seeking quashing is that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and now, there is no dispute left between them. Agreement-cum-Settlement Deed is placed on record. Petitioners are present. They are identified by their counsel Sh. P.Maheshwari, Advocate. Respondent No.2 is also present. She is identified by her counsel Sh. Parveen Asiwal, Advocate. Parties confirm that they have signed the Agreement-cum- Settlement Deed. As per the terms of settlement, petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of ? 2 lakhs to the respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of her claim, out of which, ? 1 lakh is stated to have been paid to her and it is agreed that balance ? 1 lakh, which is lying deposited in the Matrimonial Court in the form of three bankers cheques in favour of the respondent No. 2 being cheques No. 241399 for ? 2000/-, 241400 & 241401 for T 49,000/- each all dated 15''^ February, 2011 drawn on State Bank of India, Jwalapuri (J.J.Colony), Delhi shall be released in favour of the Signing Date:16.08.2024 17:08:58 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 a respondent No. 2, who shall deposit the amount of these cheques in two equal Fixed Deposit amount in the name of her minor child Shivani, which FDR shall not be negotiable till Shivani attains the age of majority. However, respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to utilize the interest on the said FDR for the benefit of child Shivani. Respondent No. 2 confirms that she has entered into this settlement of her own accord without any inducement or threat. She states that she has amicably settled the matter with the petitioner and now, there is no dispute left, as such, she does not want any action on her FIR against the petitioners and that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Learned APP appearing for the State submits that in view of the settlement arrived between the parties. State has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the FIR alive and prosecuting the petitioners for offence under Sections 498A/406/34 4 IPG. Accordingly, FIR Nol03/2008, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG registered at P.S. Pratap Nagar and the proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. It is made clear that the settlement between the parties or this order shall not come in the way of the minor child Shivani to claim maintenance from either of the parents. Trial Court is directed to release the aforesaid three bankers cheques to the respondent No. 2. "9- Petition stands disposed of. Order dasti. Copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary action. FEBRUARY 25, 2011 akb (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE a cffcU. dh f #43 % 28.07.2011 Present: Mr.Puneet Maheshwari , Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Fizani Husain, APR for the respondent No.l/State. None for the respondent No.2. +Crl.M.A. 8719/2011 in Crl.M.C.3865/2010 This is an application seel<ing modification of order dated 25'" February, 2011 seel<ing correction in respect of the FIR number of the case, which was quashed vide aforesaid order on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to inadvertence, the FIR number in Criminal Misc. No. 3865/2010 was mentioned as FIR No.103/2008, P.S. Pratap Nagar, Delhi whereas it should have been FIR No. 103/2001, P.S. Pratap Nagar and this has resulted in error in the order dated 25.02.2011. Since the petitioners are only seeking correction of a typographical error in the impugned order, request is allowed and it is ordered that in order dated 25''" February, 2011 wherever the word FIR No. 103/2008 occurs, it shall be read as 'FIR No. 103/2001'. Application stands disposed of. JULY 28, 2011 akb (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE