LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-332

KAMLESH & ORS. Vs. THE STATE & ANR.

Decided On March 02, 2016
Kamlesh And Ors. Appellant
V/S
The State And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. CRL.M.C. No.905/2016 By way of this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.110/2012 registered at Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Ms.Kiran, consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic disputes having arisen between the parties. The case is at the initial stage of investigation as charge sheet has been filed, however charges are yet to be framed by learned Trial Court. Meanwhile, the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 have amicably settled their disputes for a total sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- before learned Trial Court and made joint statement on 30.04.2013. As per the said settlement, two installment of Rs. 1,00,000/- each were paid at the time of recording of statement for first motion petition and second motion petition for divorce by mutual consent and the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is being paid today in the Court vide two demand drafts in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each bearing Nos.730178 and 730185 dated 11.01.2016 and 13.01.2016 respectively both drawn on Canara Bank in favour of respondent No.2, which facts have been disputed by the respondent No.2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that consequent to the said settlement, marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved vide decree of mutual divorce dated 07.03.2014 under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Moreover, the agreed amount has also been paid by the petitioners, thus, respondent No.2 does wish to pursue her case further against the petitioners.