1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 412/2011 RAJBIR SHARMA & ORS. Petitioners Tiirough: l^r. Sohail A. Khan, Advocate with petitioner No.l in person. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Through: l^lr. I^.N. Dudeja, APP for the State. Mr. Rajan, Adv. for R-2 with respondent No.2/complainant in person. CORAI^: HON'BLE |VIS. JUSTICE HII^IA KOHLI ORDER % 24.02.2011 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No. 152/2006, lodged by respondent No.2/complainant, wife of petitioner No.l, against him and the members of his family, petitioners No.2 to 4, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered with PS Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the marriage of petitioner No.l and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized at Delhi on 21.05.2003. There is one male child born from out of the wedlock on 02.08.2004. Thereafter, disputes and differences arose between the CRL.M.C. 412/2011 Page 1 of 4 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 parties, as a result of which, respondent No.2/complainant lodged the aforesaid FIR in February 2006. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the State on 24.01.2007 and the matter is pending at the stage of arguments on charge. In the meantime, it is stated that the parties have arrived at a settlement by interacting with each other directly. 3. Counsel for the petitioner hands over a MOU dated 4.5.2010 ^ executed betweenthe parties. In the aforesaidMOU, it is agreed that a sum of ?45,000/- would be paid by petitioner No.l to respondent No.2/complainant in full and final settlement of all her claims against him. It is stated that out of the total amount of ?45,000/-, a sum of ?25,000/- has already been paid to respondent No.2/complainant and the remaining sum of ^20,000/- shall be paid to respondent No.2/complainant at the time of allowing the second motion for grant V of divorce by mutual consent. It was also agreed that the custody of the minor child shall remain with respondent No.2/complainant. The aforesaid MOU is stated to be the part and parcel of the first motion filed by the parties jointly for grant of divorce by mutual consent. It is further stated that all the pending litigations filed by the parties against each other, have been withdrawn. CRL.M.C. 412/2011 Page 2 of 4 4. In the course of submissions, counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No.l volunteers to take out an insurance policy in the name of the minor child, i^laster Sachin for a sum assured of ?1.00 lac to mature on his completing 18 years of age in respect of which, the annual premium shall be regularly deposited by the petitioner No.l directly with the insurance company without any default. He states that after taking out the policy, a photocopy thereof shall be furnished to respondent No.2/complainant and proof of payment of annual ^ premiumshall be forwardedto the respondentNo.2/complainant.It is further stated that upon maturity of the aforesaid policy, petitioner No.l would have no objection to the entire amount being paid to his son immediately upon his attaining majority. 5. 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 out of the total sum of ?45,000/-, a sum of ^25,000/- has already received by her as part payment at the time of filing of the first motion and that she shall receive the remaining sum of ?20,000/- at the time the second motion for grant of divorce by mutual consent is allowed. 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 CRL.M.C. 412/2011 Page 3 of 4 r" in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, she has no objection to quashing of the aforesaid FIR lodged by her. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition is allowed and FIR No.152/2006 lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant with PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 9. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. HIMA KOHLI,J FEBRUARY 24, 2011 rkb/sk CRL.M.C. 412/2011 Page 4 of 4