VINAY KUMAR & ORS. vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 04.01.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 66/2024
VINAY KUMAR & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Piyush Lakhera, Advocate with petitioners in person

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for State with SI Sandeep Yadav, PS Palam Village
Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate 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)

CRL.M.A. 269/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 66/2024
1. Petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 0595/2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Palam Village, Delhi.
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, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 24.06.2020.
Due to temperamental differences, respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 could not live together and have been living separately. Further, on the basis of complaint of respondent no. 2, the present FIR was registered on 07.09.2022.
4. The matter is stated to have been amicably resolved between the parties in terms of settlement deed dated 04.09.2023. The marriage between the parties has been dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, vide decree dated 04.12.2023.
5. A balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) has been paid to respondent No.2 today through DD No.498313 dated December 20, 2023 drawn on Punjab National Bank, D-5, Vasant Vihar, New 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 arrived between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
7. Petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are present in-person in the Court today and have been identified by SI Sandeep Yadav, PS: Palam Village. 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. 0595/2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Palam Village, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
JANUARY 4, 2024/v

CRL.M.C. 66/2024 Page 3 of 3