RAJA ARORA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No.264/2016 PS Ashok Vihar, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 16.3.2018 in HMA No. 367/2018 of the Court of the Judge, Family Courts, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts and no useful purpose would be served with the continuation of the said FIR.

(2.) The Investigating Officer has identified the petitioners as being the four accused persons present in the Court today arrayed in the FIR in question. He has also identified the respondent No.2 as being the complainant of the said FIR.

(3.) The respondent No.2 affirms the factum of settlement having been executed between her and the petitioner No.1 dated 7.12.20217 pursuant to which the settlement document that marriage between the petitioner No.1 and herself has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 16.3.2018 in HMA No. 367/2018 of the Court of the Judge, Family Courts, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts. The respondent No.2 further states that in terms of the said settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner No.1 now she has received a total settled sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioners and now there are no claims of hers left against the petitioners though she submits that the petition was not filed by the date 1.6.2018 qua which it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had attempted to institute the same but could file the petition only by the date 1.4.2018 and thereafter the matter has been pending in the Court. Respondent No.2 further states that there is no child born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner No.1.