NEERAJ @ RAYMOND HENRY & ORS. vs THE STATE & ANR.

2024-03-11 Information

$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11.03.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 842/2021, CRL.M.A. 4176/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5872/2024
NEERAJ @ RAYMOND HENRY & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Ms. Hasibuddin & Mr. Sourav Ghosh, Adv.

versus

THE STATE & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Sonu Kumar, PS Jagatpuri.
Mr. Chemendra Kaushik, Adv. for R-2 with R-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. 0086/2018, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Jagat Puri (East), Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 alongwith respondent No.2 in person appear on advance notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 25.04.2012. A daughter was born out of the wedlock on 18.09.2015. Due to temperamental differences between the parties, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 started living separately since 17.03.2017. On complaint of respondent No. 2, present FIR was registered on 20.04.2018.
4. The disputes are stated to have been amicably resolved between the parties vide settlement deed dated 14.12.2023. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 10A(2) of The Divorce Act, 1869 vide judgment dated 31.01.2024.
5. Balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been paid to respondent No. 2 today through DD No. 505202 dated 20.02.2024 drawn on ICICI Bank, Chhattarpur Branch, Delhi in favour of respondent No. 2, towards full and final settlement between the parties.
6. 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.
7. Petitioner no. 1 and respondent No. 2 (in person) and petitioner no. 2 & 3 (through VC) have been identified by SI Sonu Kumar, P.S.: Jagat Puri, Delhi.. 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.
8. 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. 0086/2018, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Jagat Puri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MARCH 11, 2024/akc

CRL.M.C. 842/2021 Page 3 of 3