Gita Mittal, J.@mdashNotice.
Mr. Amit Sharma accepts notice for the State.
2. This petition has been jointly filed by Mr. Amit Bali, petitioner No. 1 with his parents Sh. Prem Nath Bali and Smt. Saroj Kanta Bali, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3; Ms. Shelly Sharma, petitioner No. 4 who is stated to have been married to the petitioner No. 1 on 29th of April, 2006. It has been pointed out that on account of differences between the petitioner Nos. 1 and 4, they had separated. The petitioner No. 4 had made a complaint to the police station Uttam Nagar based whereon FIR No. 1197 dated 23rd December, 2006 was registered against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the bail application of the petitioner No. 1, the parties were able to arrive at a settlement in the mediation proceedings conducted before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. The settlement was reduced to writing in an agreement dated 25th September, 2007 whereby the petitioner No. 4 agreed to receive a total amount of Rs. 7.25 lakhs in full and final settlement of her entire claims of maintenance, permanent alimony, istridhan and of any other kind. The parties had also agreed to seek dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and to seek quashing of the criminal complaint and proceedings arising therefrom by appropriate legal proceedings.
3. Today it is pointed out that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 4 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent which is dated 3rd March, 2008. In addition, out of the amount which was payable by the petitioner No. 1 to the petitioner No. 4, an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs stands received by the petitioner No. 4. An amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs was deposited by the petitioner No. 1 in the court of Shri Gulshan Kumar, Additional District Judge, Rohini, Delhi in the divorce proceedings.
4. This position is confirmed by the petitioner No. 4 who is present in court along with counsel.
5. By the present petition, the parties have jointly prayed before this Court that the FIR No. 1197 and all proceedings arising therefrom be quashed in order to restore harmony and to enable the parties to get on with their separate lives.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are present and have submitted that all matters between them and the petitioner No. 4 stands resolved and the parties have no other or further surviving claims of any kind against each other. The petitioner No. 4 has also confirmed the terms of the settlement and receipt of the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs from the petitioners as well as the deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs in the court at Rohini. In view of the statements of the parties in court and the documents placed on record, I am satisfied that the settlement arrived at between the parties is voluntary, bonafide and there is no legal impediment to this Court proceeding in the matter as per law. The relationship between the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand and the petitioner No. 4 on the other hand stands snapped by the decree of divorce which has also been passed on a joint petition by mutual consent. Looked at from any angle, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. Even otherwise the interest of justice as well as that of society at large merit that a quietus be brought to the litigation and the proceedings which arise out of this marital disc order
For all these reasons, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed in the interests of justice.
Accordingly, it is directed that the FIR No. 1197 and all criminal proceedings arising there from shall stand hereby quashed.
A direction is issued to Shri Gulshan Kumar, learned A.D.J., Rohini, Delhi who was seized of the HMA No. 284/2008 filed by Sh. Amit Bali and Ms. Shelly and decided on 3rd March, 2008 to make appropriate directions for release of the pay order of Rs. 1.25 lakhs in favour of Ms. Shelly when approached by way of an appropriate application for that purpose.
Shri Ashok Sapra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the passports of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were seized by the investigating officer in FIR No. 1197 pursuant to orders dated 4th April, 2007 passed in bail application No. 775/2007 of the petitioner No. 1 and the bail application No. 776/2007 of the petitioner No. 3. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the order directing quashing of the FIR, it is directed that the passports of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 shall be released by the investigating officer to them, in case there is no other order directing their seizure in any other case.
This respondent shall also take appropriate proceedings and ensure that migration and all airports will be informed about the quashing of the FIR and withdrawal of the lock out circulars which have been issued in respect of the petitioner Nos. 1-3 in respect of the FIR No. 1197.
The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of accordingly
Crl. M. No. 4743 and 4744/2008
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of accordingly.
Dasti to counsel for the parties.
