38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3817/2010 & Cri.M.A. No.18340/2010 MURLI DHAR KORJANI & ORS. . .... Petitioners Through : Mr. R.S. Chaggar, Adv. with petitioners No.1 to 4 in person. versus STATE & ANR. CORAM: ..... Respondents Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State with SI Vijender Singh. Mr. Rahul Nagar, proxy counsel for Ms. Riya Kojani, Adv. for R-2 with Respondent No.2/complainant in person. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER 0/o 09.12.2010 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.698/2006 lodged by respondent No.2/complainant, against her husband, petitioner No.1, and his family members, petitioners No.2 to 6, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered with PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi and all proceedings arising therefrom. 2. It is the case of the parties that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized on 22.11.2004. From out of the wedlock, a son was born on 18.10.2005, who is CRL.M.C. 3817/2010 Page 1 of 4 ) Signing Date:03.08.2024 17:21:43 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 _, presently in custody of respondent No.2/complainant. Due to temperamental problems and irreconcilable differences, which arose between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant, the parties parted company and have been living separately since 17.2.2007. Thereafter the respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 also filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against respondent No.2/complainant in the year 2008. Thereafter, the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged by respondent No.2/complainant on 13.8.2008. 3. During the course of hearing of Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, for exploring the possibility of arriving at a negotiated settlement. It is stated that the matter was settled in the Mediation Centre, as recorded in the proceedings dated 25.2.2010. Though, copy of the aforesaid proceedings are not placed on record, counsel for the petitioners hands over an attested copy thereof, which is taken on record. As per the terms and conditions of the settlement, as set out in para 3 of the aforesaid compromise deed, it was agreed that a sum of Rs.l. 75 lacs shall be paid by petitioner No.1 to CRL.M.C. 3817/2010 respondent No.2/ Page 2 of 4 complainant in full and final settlement of all her claims against the petitioners. 4. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the sum of Rs.1.25 lacs has already been paid by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2/complainant and for the balance amount, he hands over in Court today, a bank draft bearing No.227642 dated 19.10.2010 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Jaipur (3230) for the sum of Rs.SO,OOO/-, in favour of respondent No.2/complainant. He submits that petitioner No.1 shall have no objection to the minor child remaining in the custody of the respondent No.2/complainant. It is further stated that both the parties have withdrawn the proceedings initiated by them against each other. He, therefore, seeks quashing of the aforesaid FIR. 5. Respondent No.2/complainant, who is presentin the Court and is represented through counsel, confirms the aforesaid position and states that she has received the aforesaid entire amount, including the bank draft of Rs.SO,OOO/- handed over to her today. She further 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, and has no objection to quashing of the aforesaid FIR lodged by her. CRL.M.C. 3817/2010 Page 3 of 4 6. Learned APP for the State, on instruction from the Investigating Officer, states that after investigations were carried out, challan has been filed, and 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.698/2006 lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant with PS Uttam Nagar, 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. DECEMBER 09,2010 sk CRL.M.C. 3817/2010 HIMA KOHLI,J Page 4 of 4