CRL.M.C./2545/2018 of MANISH TOMAR & ORS Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 2545/2018

MANISH TOMAR & ORS

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Rajiv Khosla, Mr. Prince Gupta,Ms. Anu Sharma and Ms. AnjuBharti, Advs.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThroughMr. Akshai Malik, Addl. PP for theState with SI SumitMr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVAO R R%28.05.2018

1.The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 373 of 2016 underSections 498A/406/34 of the IPC Police Station Uttam Nagar, NewDelhi, based on settlement. It is contended that the FIR was lodgedconsequent to matrimonial discord.

2.Petitioner no. 1 was married to respondent no. 2. Petitioner no.4 is sister of petitioner no. 1 petitioner no. 3 is husband of petitionerno. 4. One of the co-accused i.e. brother of petitioner no. 1 wasimpleaded as respondent no. 3. Notice was directed to be issued torespondent no. 3. However, office report was not received.

3.Learned counsels for the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2submit that the parties have settled their disputes and have amicably

dissolved their marriage by mutual consent and decree of divorcedated 23.04.2018 has been passed. It is further submitted on behalf ofthe parties that parties had entered into the settlement and settlementdeed dated 25.09.2017 has been executed. As per the settlement, atotal sum of Rs.20 lakhs has been agreed to be paid to respondent no.2. sum of Rs. 15 lakhs has already been paid and the balance sum ofRs. 5 lakhs has already been deposited with the trial court on23.04.2018.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on decision of theSupreme Court dated 10.04.2017 in Crl. Appeal No. 670/2017 titledas ‘Lovely Salhotra & Anr. Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.’ to contendthat part quashing of an FIR is permissible.

5.Respondent no. 2 is present in court in person and is identifiedby the Investigating Officer. She submits that she has settled all herdisputes with the petitioners and is agreeable to the settlement anddoes not wish to press the criminal charges either against thepetitioners or respondent no. 3 any further and she has no objection tothe quashing of the FIR.

6.In view of the fact that the disputes between the petitioners andrespondent no. 2 emanate out of matrimonial discord and have beensettled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise infutility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between theparties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends ofjustice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to

quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanatingtherefrom.

7.In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 373 of2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC Police Station UttamNagar, New Delhi and the consequent proceedings there from, qua thepetitioners, are accordingly quashed.

8.Trial court is directed to release the Banker’s cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent no. 2.

9.Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 28, 2018‘rs’

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J