1 9. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1938/2007 HARISH BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner Through Petitioner in person. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, APP for the State. Mr. R.K. Narang, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 along with respondent No. 2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 12.08.2010 I have heard the petitioner in person and the counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 in person. The settlement agreement dated 14th March, 2007 relied by the petitioner has various clauses mentioned in paragraph 6 thereof. Clause (a) stipulates that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 shall resolve their disputes amicably and live together as husband and wife till death. It is stated that for last five years the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have not been able to live together as husband and wife. The petitioner has also revoked the Will in respect of property No. 359/1, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-110017. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the settlement agreement is still subsisting and has not been repudiated or 2 cancelled by the conduct of the parties. There are allegations and counter- allegations as to which party is responsible for the said defaults. I am not, therefore, inclined to quash the FIR No. 1503/2006, P.S. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi on the basis of the settlement agreement alone. It has been stated that the police has filed a closure report before the learned trial court. I have not examined the closure report and the merits of the same. This aspect will be decided by the learned trial court independently on merits without being influenced by the order passed today. It is also clarified that in case the petitioner has made any payment or transferred any shares or mutual funds to the respondent No. 2 pursuant to the settlement agreement, it is open to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of the said amount and for re-transfer of the shares/mutual funds. It will be equally open to the respondent No. 2 to defend the said proceedings. The petition is accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. AUGUST 12, 2010 VKR/P