SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Sahil Mittal - Appellant
Versus
State N.C.T. of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) 1599 of 2022
Decided On : 30-11-2022




Settlement agreements can lead to the quashing of FIRs, especially when the aggrieved party voluntarily withdraws objections, as established in this case.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Petition for quashing FIR No.683/2021 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC - The respondent expressed no objection to the quashing of FIR following settlement agreement and receipt of full settlement amount. (Paras 1, 2)

(B) Settlement - Voluntary agreement reached before the Family Court regarding divorce and maintenance - The amount stipulated was Rs.19,00,000/-; Rs.12,00,000/- already paid and Rs.7,00,000/- is settled through DD. (Paras 1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Sahil Mittal, was married to Aarti Aggarwal on 03.03.2019. After filing for mutual divorce which was granted on 07.05.2022, they settled on an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- for the dispute, of which Rs.12,00,000/- has been paid. Respondent expressed no objection to quashing the FIR against the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court found no basis to continue the FIR based on the voluntary statement from the respondent that she is satisfied with the settlement and wishes to quash the FIR under Sections 406/498-A IPC.

Issues: Whether the FIR can be quashed based on a mutual settlement between the parties involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that where the aggrieved party expresses no objection and indicates satisfaction with a settlement regarding financial matters stemming from marriage breakdown, FIRs can be quashed.

Result: FIR No.683/2021 and all related proceedings are quashed.

Table of Content
1. settlement and consent to quash fir (Para 1)
2. quashing of fir based on mutual consent (Para 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. Statement of Respondent No.2/Ms. Aarti Aggarwal has been recorded separately wherein she has stated that she was married to Sahil Mittal on 03.03.2019 and remained together with the petitioner till 19.11.2019. However, the marriage could not succeed and mutual divorce petition was filed and decree of divorce was granted vide order dated 07.05.2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North Rohini, Delhi. She has further stated that during the divorce proceedings, she along with the petitioners have reached into a settlement dated 02.04.2022 before the learned Judge, Family Court, North Rohini, Delhi. As per the settlement, her husband/petitioner No.1 has to pay Rs.19,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the entire dispute and she has already been paid Rs.12,00,000/-. Remaining sum of Rs.7,00,000/- has been received by way of a Demand Draft bearing No.308222 dated 28.11.2022 drawn on Punjab National Bank. She has stated that she has no objection if FIR No.683/2021 U/s 406/498-A IPC registered at P.S. Dabri and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. She has stated that she is making the statement voluntarily against all claims (past, present and future) without any fear, undue influence or coercion.

2. In view of the statement of respondent no.2/Ms.Aarti Aggarwal recorded separately, the case FIR No.683/2021 U/s 406/498-A IPC registered at P.S. Dabri and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

3. The present petition stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top