CRL.M.C./7351/2024 of MOHAN & ORS. Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 7351/2024

MOHAN & ORS.

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Rahul Tiwar, Adv.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

.....Respondent

Through:Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, Ld. APPfor the State with W/ASI Mimme PSPuunjabi Bagh

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R R%17.09.2024CRL.M.A. 28030/2024 (Seeking Exemption)

1.Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2.The application is accordingly disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 7351/2024

3.The Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C., 1973’) has been filed on behalf ofthe petitioner, seeking quashing of the FIR No. 367/2022 for the offencesunder Section 498A/406/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafterreferred to as ‘IPC, 1860’) registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh.4.Issue notice.

5.Learned APP appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf

of the State.

6.Brief facts of the case are that the marriage was solemnized betweenpetitioner No. 1/husband and respondent No. 2/wife on 24.08.2009according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies and two children were born outof the said wedlock.

7.It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 haveamicably settled all the disputes and differences between them videSettlement Deed dated 16.02.2024 wherein it is stated that the Petitioner No.1 shall reside together in the house bearing No. 39 A, Old Slum Quarters,Paschim Puri, Delhi which has been gifted by the Petitioner No. 3 Smt.Virwati to Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 jointly.

8.The parties are present before this Court in-person today, and havebeen identified by their counsel and Investigating Officer concerned.

9.The present petition has been signed by the petitioner and is supportedby the affidavits of the parties. The petitioner No. 1 submits that eventhough they have reconciled their differences but he is still living in rentedpremise and is also bearing all the expenses of the children and is getting nosupport from the respondent No.2. However, he has found his peace in thismechanism and wants the quashing of the FIR.

10.Today, the respondent No. 2/wife, who is present in the Court, statesthat she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

11.In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolvedtheir differences out of their own free will and without any coercion and alsothe fact that the present matter is family matter, no useful purpose will beserved in continuing with the proceedings, rather the same would createfurther acrimony between them. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice

to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

12.Moreover, there is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR inquestion.

13.Accordingly, FIR No. 367/2022 for the offences under Section498A/406/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as‘IPC, 1860’) registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh and all consequentialproceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

14.The Petition stands disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2024/PT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J