The court affirmed that a mutual settlement in a divorce case, accepted voluntarily, can lead to the quashing of related FIRs under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.21/2010 dated 10.02.010 under Sections 498A /406/34 Indian Penal Code , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), registered at Police Station Crime (Women) Cell, Nanakpura and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, Petitioner No.1/Priyank Sukhija got married to Respondent No.2/Divya Mehta on 16.02.2001 according to Hindu customs and rites. Some disputes arose between the parties which resulted in filing of a Complaint under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC by Respondent No.2 which resulted in FIR No.21/2010 on 10.02.2010.

3. With the intervention of friends and relatives, both the parties decided to resolve their disputes amicably and accordingly arrived at a Settlement dated 05.12.2011. In terms of the Settlement, they filed their first motion Petition for Divorce by way of Mutual Consent under Section 13(B)(1) HMA, 1955 which was allowed by the learned ADJ vide Order dated 13.03.2012. In terms of the Settlement, Petitioner No.1 paid Rs.30 lakhs, in terms of Settlement amount to Respondent No.2 towards her claim for Stridhan, maintenance past, present and future and permanent alimony. The second motion of Divorce by mutual consent was filed by Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 vide HMA No.1220/2015. The statements of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 were duly recorded in the said Petition and Divorce was granted vide Order dated 08.03.2016.

4. The Petitioner has now sought quashing of FIR No.21/2010 in view of the mutual Settlement wherein they had undertaken that all the previous Complaint cases against each other or their respective families pending in any Court of law or in Police Station shall be withdrawn or quashed as per law.

5. In the light of the statements given by Respondent No.2/Ms. Divya Mehta before the Family Court and their Settlement, the Petitioners have sought the quashing of the FIR No.21/2010.

6. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been explained that on receiving the Complaint from Respondent No.2/Divya Sukhija in SPUWAC, Nanakpura, both the parties were called for counselling in Mediation, but no fruitful result came out resulting in registration of FIR No. 021/2010. The Chargesheet already stands filed in the Court of learned M.M on 06.12.2012 against the Petitioner who have been put in Column No. 11; while Lokesh Sukhija (Devar) and Smt. Mukta Sukhija (Devrani) have been put in Column No. 12. It is further stated that in the meanwhile, the matter has been Settled for Rs.30 lakhs and both the motions of divorce had been completed.

7. The Respondent No. 2 appeared and learned Senior Advocate on behalf of Respondent No. 2 contended that there is no complete compliance of the terms of Settlement. At the time of First Motion, the parties had relied on the Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.12.2011 Ex.P1, wherein Petitioner No.1/Priyank Sukhija undertook to pay a sum of Rs.1.75 crores to Respondent No.2 in full and final Settlement of all her claims towards alimony, dowry etc.

8. However, in their statement recorded at the time of Second Motion, it was mentioned that there was no possibility of reconciliation between the parties. It was further stated that they have agreed to dissolve their marriage by Decree of Divorce and that the amount of Rs.30 lakhs which had already been paid at the time of First Motion, shall be treated as full and final settlement, and that Petitioner No.1 shall not make any further payment for grant of Divorce by mutual consent. Consequently, the divorce was granted.

9. It is submitted by the Respondent No. 2 that it is inconceivable that when the parties had initially agreed for the Settlement for Rs.1.75 crores as was recorded in the First Motion, the Resp