KANAV GUPTA & ORS. vs STATE & ANR.

2024-05-07 Information

$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07.05.2024
+ W.P.(CRL.) 1216/2024
KANAV GUPTA & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Ms.Neha Kapoor and Mr.Kaushal Mehta, Advocates alongwith petitioners in person.
versus

STATE AND ANR. …. Respondents
Through: Mr.Anand V.Khatri, ASC (Crl.) for State with SI Chandra Veer, P.S. Safdarjung Enclave.
Mr.Prateek Goswami, Mr.Honey Sharma and Mr.Amit Jay Singh, Advocates with respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 135/2023, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Safdarjung Enclave and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 04.12.2015. No child was born out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 started living separately. On complaint of respondent No. 2 present FIR was registered on 22.04.2023.
3. The disputes are stated to have been amicably settled between the parties in terms of Settlement Deed dated 30.09.2023. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by decree of divorce dated 29.01.2024 by way of mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
5. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 (in person) & Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (through VC) have been identified by SI Chandra Veer, P.S.: Safdarjung Enclave. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. It would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 135/2023, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Safdarjung Enclave and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MAY 07, 2024/v

W.P.(CRL.) 1216/2024 Page 2 of 2