RAKESH AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Rakesh and Smt. Santosh for quashing of FIR No. 171/2012 dated 10.10.2012, under Ss. 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station Kapashera on the basis of the compromise/settlement arrived at before the Counselor, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 -Ms. Vinita @ Vineeta Rana on 03.01.2015.

(2.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State submitted that the respondent No. 2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first -informant of the FIR in question by her counsel.

(3.) Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the compromise, the matter has been compromised between the parties and they have decided to get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent. Further the petitioner No. 1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 6,25,000/ - to the respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all the claims of the complainant/respondent No. 2 towards istridhan, dowry articles, permanent alimony (past, present and future) and maintenance. It has further been agreed that the case under Sec. 13(1)(ia) HMA shall be withdrawn at the time of recording the first motion along with the case registered under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. Respondent No. 2 affirms the contents of the said settlement and of her affidavit dated 09.09.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent No. 2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No. 2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.