Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Priyash Bhargava & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 2569 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2023
Quashing of FIR - Matrimonial Dispute - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - IPC 498A/406/307/313/377/34 - [Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, IPC 498A/406/307/313/377/34] - The court quashed the FIR and related proceedings after the parties reached a settlement, citing the duty of courts to encourage amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes. The petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- with Delhi State Legal Authority within four weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The parties got married but could not adjust together, leading to the registration of a case FIR. They later reached a settlement and the marriage was dissolved by the Family Court. The complainant stated that she has since remarried and is living peacefully with her husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the settlement reached by the parties and the complainant's remarriage, and decided to quash the FIR and related proceedings. The petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- with Delhi State Legal Authority within four weeks.
Issues: Matrimonial dispute, settlement, quashing of FIR, imposition of cost
Ratio Decidendi: Courts should encourage amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes. Settlement reached voluntarily without fear, force, or coercion. Quashing of FIR and related proceedings in view of settlement.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Case FIR No.130/2017 and related proceedings, imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- on each petitioner to be deposited with Delhi State Legal Authority within four weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of case FIR No.130/2017 registered under section 498A/406/307/313/377/34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the parties got married on 04.06.2013 according to Hindu rights and ceremonies. That due to conflicts and difference in attitude Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 could not adjust together and are thereby living separately since march 2017. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 got the above-mentioned FIR registered against all the petitioners. There is no child born out of this wedlock.
3. However it is submitted that now the parties have reached on a settlement on the following terms and conditions
"A. It is agreed between the parties, that they would file a mutual divorce petition before the Family Court within two week of signing of the present MOU and shall appear before the court to make their statement before the Family Court.
B. That the SECOND PARTY undertakes that his mother i.e., Mrs. Meera Bhargava will withdraw the cases, filed under Section 12 of Protection from Women from Domestic Violence Act-2005 pending in IN THE COURT OF MS. UPASANA SATIJA 761-MM/MAHIL, NORTH DISTRICT, Rohini Court Complex, New Delhi 110085 And Case filed Under 156 (3) Cr.P.C. pending in the court of Mr. Mayank Goel 528-MM, North District, Rohini court complex, New Delhi 110085 and Complaint under Senior Citizen Act filed before District Magistrate Alipur, on or before presentation of 2nd motion petition.
C. That the SECOND PARTY will also withdraw application filed under section 340 Cr.P.C. pending IN THE COURT OF MR. MANU RAI SETHI PRINCIPAL JUDGE, NORTH DISTRICT, Rohini court complex, New Delhi 110085, on or before presentation of second motion petition.
D. That the FIRST PARTY had filed cases, under section 12 of Protection from Women from Domestic Violence Act-2005 in Rohini District Court, vide Filling No. 3682/2017 Filling Date 13/04/2017 and 125 Cr.P.C. in Rohini District court, vide Filling No. 186/2017 Filling Date 03/04/2017, Both the cases are dismissedfor non-prosecution. The FIRST PARTY is under obligation to withdraw divorce petition No. 865/2020 pending before family court, Karkardooma on or before the presentation of second motion divorce petition.
E. That it has also been agreed that FIRST PARTY undertakes to sign all affidavit, application or petition for quashing of the FIR after recording statements of SECOND motion.
F. That is has also been agreed that after recording of statements of parties in the SECOND motion and after passing of decree of divorce by mutual consent, the SECOND PARTY shall file the quashing petition before Hon'ble Delhi High Court for quashing of the FIR bearing No. 130/17, dated 04/04/2017 P.S. Model Town, as per the law, which is pending in the court of Mr. Rakesh Kumar III, Additional Session Judge, North District, Rohini Court Complex, New Delhi 110085, and the FIRST PARTY undertakes to co-operate in the process of quashing of the said FIR, as per the law, and make necessary statement or affidavit and also appear before Hon'ble High Court.
G. The parties shall withdraw all proceedings/cases/complaints filed by them against each other or their family members, which they have or have not appraised to each other, on or before filing of second motion petition. Both parties need to share the document showing the closure of proceeding/case/complaint to the other PARTY on or before presentation of 2nd motion petition.
H. The parties shall not retrograde to comply with the terms of the present MOU and if any PARTY does so, the other PARTY shall have all rights to proceed in the Court of Law as per remedy available to him/her, not limited to withdrawing or challenging the divorce from/in the court of law.
I. The either PARTY shall not raise any claim or right over the properties (immovable or movable) of the other PARTY or his/her parents
The court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties, especially in cases arising out of matrimonial dif....
The voluntary nature of the settlement, absence of fear, force, or coercion, and the desire of the parties to live peacefully were central to the court's decision to quash the FIR and related proceed....
The court emphasized the use of Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of court process and secure justice, while encouraging genuine settlement of marital disputes.
The court emphasized the importance of amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes and the exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code to secure the ends of justice.
Courts should encourage amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes and respect settlements entered into voluntarily without coercion.
Courts should encourage amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes and may quash related proceedings if the parties have voluntarily settled the matter.
The court can exercise inherent powers under section 482 of the Code to quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the parties, es....
Matrimonial disputes should be put to rest if the parties have arrived at a genuine settlement, as established in previous judgments.
The court can exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the parties in matrimonial disputes.
Matrimonial disputes should be put to rest if the parties have genuinely settled their differences.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
