DINESH KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Quashing of FIR No. 701/2016, under Sections 498A/406/377/34 of IPC registered at police station Alipur, Outer District Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 17th March, 2018 (Annexure P-3) Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court is the complainant/first informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by ASI Rajender Singh on the basis of identity proof produced by her Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Mediated Settlement of 17th March, 2018 (Annexure P-3)and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has received the settled amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 107727 of 2nd February, 2019. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 10th December, 2018 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.

(2.) Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR / criminal complaint, which are as under:-

(3.) Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.