CRL.M.C./4231/2024 of SH. RAHUL MITTAL & ORS. Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.M.C. 4231/2024 SH. RAHUL MITTAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Surendra Yadav, Adv. SH. RAHUL MITTAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Surendra Yadav, Adv.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State alongwith SI Kunal Kishor. Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State alongwith SI Kunal Kishor.

Ms.Soniya Kainthola, Adv. for R-2 along with R-2 in person. R-2 along with R-2 in person.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

O R R% 22.05.2024CRL.M.A. 16063/2024 (exemption)

1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 4231/2024

2.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of FIR No.234/2018 registered at Police Station: Roop Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’), along with all other proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of settlement. Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of FIR No.234/2018 registered at Police Station: Roop Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’), along with all other proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of settlement. 3.Issue notice.

4.Notice is accepted by Mr.Shoaib Haider, learned APP and Ms.Soniya Kainthola, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Ms.Soniya Kainthola, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject

FIR was an offshoot of the matrimonial discord between the parties, that is, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2. parties, that is, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties, that is, the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2, have amicably settled all their inter se disputes vide Settlement/MOU dated 20.02.2024. that is, the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2, have amicably settled all their inter se disputes vide Settlement/MOU dated 20.02.2024.

7.Pursuant to the above settlement, the parties have also been granted Decree of Divorce dated 06.05.2024, by which the parties have decided to part ways by mutual consent. granted Decree of Divorce dated 06.05.2024, by which the parties have decided to part ways by mutual consent.

8.The respondent no.2 is present in person and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer (IO). The petitioner no.1 has handed over demand draft of Rs.10 lacs to the respondent no.2. identified by the Investigating Officer (IO). The petitioner no.1 has handed over demand draft of Rs.10 lacs to the respondent no.2.

9.The respondent no.2 affirms that she has settled all the disputes with the petitioners of her own free will and without any coercion. The respondent no.2 submits that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. with the petitioners of her own free will and without any coercion. The respondent no.2 submits that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

10. The petitioner no.1 has handed over an affidavit undertaking that the settlement of the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 shall in no manner affect the rights of the child. the settlement of the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 shall in no manner affect the rights of the child.

11. I have perused the contents of the FIR and also the settlement between the parties. between the parties.

12. As the disputes between the parties arose out of matrimonial relationship, and now the same have been amicably settled, Decree of Divorce has also been granted to the parties pursuant to the settlement, and also looking into the nature of the relationship, and now the same have been amicably settled, Decree of Divorce has also been granted to the parties pursuant to the settlement, and also looking into the nature of the

allegations made in the complaint, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIR alive. In fact, it would rather create further acrimony between the parties and will be an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer.

13. Guided by the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in its

judgments in Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 641; and, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.234/2018 registered

at Police Station: Roop Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed, binding the petitioner no.1 to the undertaking given by way of aforesaid affidavit.

MAY 22, 2024 RNrp

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

Click here to check corrigendum, if any