High CourtsSingle Bench

Shubhashish Ganguly & Anr vs State & Anr

Delhi High Court · Decided on 20 August 2018 · Citation: (2018) 08 DEL CK 0303

HON’BLE JUDGES
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 406, 498A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3124 OF 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 470 words

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 377 of 2014 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC registered at Police Vikas Puri, New Delhi, based on

a settlement. It is contended that the FIR was lodged consequent to a matrimonial discord.

2.

Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have settled their disputes by way of a settlement before the Lok Adalat dated 11.02.2017.

As per the settlement, a total sum of Rs. 15 lakhs has been agreed to be paid to respondent no. 2. A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs has already been paid to

respondent no. 2 and the balance sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt has been deposited in the name of minor son of the

petitioner. Original FDR has been handed over to respondent no. 2. The parties have already been divorced by way of a decree of divorce by mutual

consent passed on 12.04.2018.

3.

It is pointed by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that there is a slight error in the name of the respondent no. 2 who is nominee in the FDR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that PAN number of respondent no. 2 has been given to the bank and in case there is a

problem in encashment or renewal of the FDR, he undertakes to execute such documents as may be required by the bank. The undertaking is

accepted.

4.

It is further agreed between the parties that the custody of the minor child shall remain with respondent no. 2. The petitioner who is present in court

in person undertakes that he shall not claim any right contrary to the settlement terms. The undertaking is accepted.

5.

Respondent no. 2 who is present in court in person, represented by her counsel and is identified by the Investigating Officer submits that she has

settled the disputes with the petitioners and is agreeable to the settlement and does not wish to press the criminal charges against the petitioners any

further.

6.

In view of the fact that the disputes between the petitioners and respondent no. 2 emanate out of a matrimonial discord and have been settled,

continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end

and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the

consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

7.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 377 of 2014 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC registered at Police Vikas Puri, New

Delhi and the consequent proceedings therefrom are, accordingly quashed.

8.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.