38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 678/2011 & CrLM.A. No.2636/2011 AMIT SAHNI & ORS Petitioners Through : Mr. Dharmender Arya, Adv. with petitioners in person. versus STATE Respondent Through : l^r. I^I.N. Dudeja, proxy counsel for l^r. O.P. Saxena, APR for the State with Investigating Officer. Respondent No.2/complainant in person with her mother. CORAjVi: HON'BLE |V|S. JUSTICE HII^IA KOHLI ORDER % 04.03.2011 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.247/2007 lodged by respondent No.2/complainant, against her former husband, petitioner No.l, and his family members, petitioners No.2 to 4, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered with PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi and all \ proceedingsarising therefrom. 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the marriage of petitioner No.l and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized on 2.2.2004 at New Delhi. However, there is no issue born from out of the wedlock. CRL.M.C. 678/2011 Page 1 of 4 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 It is stated that immediately after the marriage, certain disputes and differences arose between petitioner No.l and respondent No.2/complainant, which resulted in lodging of the aforesaid FIR by respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners on 21.5.2007. 3. It is stated that after the investigation was completed, a charge sheet has been filed and the matter is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 4. Counsel for the petitioners states that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement as recorded in the Agreement dated 2.9.2009 (Annexure P-3), in terms of which it was agreed that a sum of ?2.50 lacs shall be paid by petitioner No.l to respondent No.2/complainant in full and final settlement of all her claims against him and his family members. He further states that out of the total amount of ?2.50 lacs, a sum of ?1.90 lacs has already been paid to respondent No.2/complainant and today he hands over a sum of ?60,000/- to respondent No.2/complainant, which is duly accepted by her. He submits that pursuant to the parties approaching the concerned court for grant of divorce by mutual consent, a decree of divorce was passed on 25.3.2010 (Annexure P-2). It is stated that in terms of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, CRL.M.C. 678/2011 Page 2 of 4 ny both the parties have withdrawn all the cases filed by thenn against each other. He, therefore, seeks quashing of the FIR. 5. Respondent No.2/connplainant, who is present in person and is identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms the aforesaid position. She confirms the fact that she has received the entire sum of ^2.50 lacs from petitioner No.l in full and final settlement of all her claims against the petitioners and nothing further is due or payable to her by the petitioners. She further confirms that a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been passed. 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 in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, she does not wish to proceed further with the aforesaid FIR lodged by her and has no objection to the same being quashed 6. Learned APP for the State, on instruction from the Investigating Officer, confirms the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement and now are living separately. He, therefore, does not oppose the prayer made in the present petition. 7. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties. In view of the submission made by respondent No.2/complainant and in view of the CRL.M.C. 678/2011 Page 3 of 4 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.247/2007 lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant with PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 9. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application. File be consigned to the record room. MARCH 04, 2011 sk HIMA KOHLI,J CRL.IVI.C. 678/2011 Page 4 of 4