Supreme Court: Imminent Death Not Required For a Statement to Qualify as Dying Declaration  ||  SC: HC Cannot Grant Pre-Arrest Bail Without Quashing FIR; Accused Must Approach Sessions Court First  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract  ||  SC: GST Exemption on Residential Lease Applies When Building is Sub-Leased for Hostel/PG Use  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Universities Cannot Retain Students’ Original Documents for Pending Fees  ||  NCLT: Damages from Contractual Disputes Cannot Form Basis for Initiating Insolvency Proceedings  ||  Del HC: Pre-SCN Consultation is Unnecessary in Large-Scale GST Fraud Cases with Complex Transactions  ||  Calcutta HC: Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Violates Natural Justice and Sets Aside the Award  ||  Raj HC Upholds Padmesh Mishra’s AAG Appointment, Noting Advocacy Skill isn’t Tied to Experience    

Md. Aasif & Ors. Vs. State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (17 Apr 2023)

Cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to quietus, if the parties have arrived upon a genuine settlement

MANU/DE/2549/2023

Criminal

The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 5th April, 2010 as per Muslim rites and rituals. No child was born out of this wedlock. Thereafter owing to temperamental differences both parties started residing separately. Consequently, Respondent No. 2/complainant lodged the present FIR against the Petitioners, the chargesheet has not been filed in the present case.

The petitioners and the complainant/respondent no. 2 are present before this court in person and have been duly identified by the IO. Respondent No. 2 states that she has entered into the settlement voluntarily out of her own free will, without any fear, force or coercion. Since the terms and conditions of the settlement have complied, she has no objection if the present FIR and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Since the dispute between the parties has been settled, continuance of proceedings in FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC would serve no useful purpose and may cause prejudice to the petitioner and be an exercise in futility. The chances of conviction would also be bleak and remote, given that the parties do not wish to pursue the present complaint on account of the settlement. It has been stated that Respondent no. 2 has already withdrawn the complaint under Section 12 of DV Act on 15.11.2022.

There is no reason to reject the settlement. It is better to put a quietus to the dispute in view of the settlement deed arrived at between the parties voluntarily without any force, fear or coercion. The Supreme Court and this Court have time and again held that, cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to quietus if the parties have arrived upon a genuine settlement. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and to prevent abuse of the power of the Court and secure the ends of justice, the FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Petition disposed off.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   SARFAESI ACT   DISCRETION OF LOWER COURT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved