CRL.M.C./4259/2024 of PANKAJ PARMAR & ORS. Vs STATE (GNCTD) THROUGH S.H.O

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.M.C. 4259/2024 PANKAJ PARMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Abdul Gaffar, Adv. PANKAJ PARMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Abdul Gaffar, Adv.

versus

STATE (GNCTD) THROUGH S.H.O ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Priyanka Dalal, APP for State alongwith W/SI Bharti. R-2 in person. Through: Ms.Priyanka Dalal, APP for State alongwith W/SI Bharti. R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

O R R% 22.05.2024CRL.M.A. 16156/2024 (exemption)

1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 4259/2024

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.232/2014 registered at Police Station: Daryaganj, under Sections 498A/406/34 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.232/2014 registered at Police Station: Daryaganj, under Sections 498A/406/34 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 Ms.Priyanka Dalal, learned APP and the respondent no.2, who is present in Court. respondent no.2, who is present in Court.

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. FIR was an offshoot of the matrimonial discord between the 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 dated 24.11.2022. that is, the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2, have amicably settled all their inter se disputes vide Settlement dated 24.11.2022.

7.Pursuant to the above settlement, the parties have also been granted Decree of Divorce dated 29.04.2024 by which the parties have decided to part their ways by mutual consent. granted Decree of Divorce dated 29.04.2024 by which the parties have decided to part their 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 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent no.2, who is present in Court. She submits that all the amounts in terms of the settlement have been received by her. identified by the Investigating Officer (IO). The petitioner no.1 has handed over demand draft for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent no.2, who is present in Court. She submits that all the amounts in terms of the settlement have been received by her.

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

11. 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 between 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 relationship, and now the same have been amicably settled, Decree of Divorce has also been granted between 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.

12. 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. 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.

13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.232/2014 registered at Police Station: Daryaganj, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed.at Police Station: Daryaganj, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed.

MAY 22, 2024 RN/rp

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

Click here to check corrigendum, if any