43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 624/2011 & Crl.M.As. No.2396-97/2011 ANURAG GUPTA & ORS Petitioners Through : l^r. N.K. Jain, Adv. for petitioners No.l to 5 with petitioners No.l to 5 in person. Ms. Meenakashi Lekhi, Adv. for petitioner No.6 with petitioner No.6/complainant In person. versus STATE Respondent Through : i^Ir. I^.N. Dudeja, APP for the State with Investigating Officer. . j CORAIVI: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HII^IA KOHLI ORDER % 25.02.2011 1. The present joint petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.119/2010 lodged by petitioner No.6/connplainant, against her husband, petitioner No.l, and his family members, petitioners No.2 to 5, under Sections 341/34 IPC with PS Civil Lines, Delhi and all proceedings arising therefrom. h 2. Counsel for petitioners No.l to 5 states that the marriage of petitioner No.l and petitioner No.6/complainant was solemnized on CRL.M.C. 624/2011 Page No.l 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 1.3.2008 at Delhi. However, there is no issue born from out of the wedlock. Thereafter, due to certain disputes and differences which arose between petitioner No.l and petitioner No.6/complainant, they started living separately in the year 2010, which was followed by lodging of the aforesaid FIR on 24.6.2010 by petitioner No.6/complainant. 3. It is stated that when petitioners No.l to 5 approached the court for grant of anticipatory bail, with the intervention of the court, the parties interacted with each other and arrived at an amicable settlement as recorded in the Joint Statement of the Parties dated 9.7.2010(Annexure-C), in terms of which, it was agreed that petitioners No.l & 6 would approach the concerned court for grant of divorce by mutual consent. It is further stated that the parties agreed that petitioner No.l would pay a sum of ?55.00 lacs to petitioner No.6/complainant in full and final settlement of all her claims against petitioners No.l to 5. 4. Counsel for petitioners No.l to 5 states that out of the total amount of ?55.00 lacs, a sum of ?27.50 lacs has already been paid to petitioner No.6/complainant and the remaining sum of ?27.50 lacs shall be paid by petitioner No.l to petitioner No.6/complainant at the CRL.M.C. 624/2011 Page No.2 of 4 time of passing of orders on the second motion for grant of divorce by mutual consent, which is listed today before the learned ADJ. He therefore states that the present FIR may be quashed. 5. Petitioner No.6/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 ?55.00 lacs, a sum of ?27.50 lacs has already been received by her as part payment at the time of filing of the first motion of divorce and that she shall receive the remaining sum of ?27.50 lacs at the time when the second motion for grant of divorce by mutual consent is allowed. She states that she has arrived at the aforesaid settlement with petitioners No.l to 5 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 has no objection to the 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. CRL.M.C. 624/2011 Page No.3 of 4 7. This Court lias Ineard the counsels for the parties. In view of the submission made by petitioner No.6/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.119/2010 lodged by petitioner No.6/complainant with PS Civil Lines, Delhi, and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 9. The petition is disposed of along with the pending applications. File be consigned to the record room. HIMA KOHLI,J FEBRUARY 25,2011 sk CRL.M.C. 624/2011 Page No.4 of 4