NIKETAN DUGGAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. seeking quashing of FIR No. 184/2011 under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC, 1860 and all proceedings arising therefrom at Police Station Preet Vihar on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties. Issue notice. Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant enter appearance and accept notice. The complainant is also present in Court. She is also identified by the Investigating Officer - SI Brahmpal Singh.

(2.) It is the case of the parties that the aforesaid complaint came to be lodged as a result of certain matrimonial disputes that has arisen after the marriage of the complainant - Madhvi Pawar Duggal with the first petitioner - Niketan Duggal on 02.12.2009. The parties thereafter moved the Family Court in HMA No. 741/2014 under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. These proceedings concluded with a decree of dissolution of marriage on 10.05.2014. Copies; of the petition seeking dissolution of their marriage under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as well as the Decree Sheet, have been annexed to this petition. The terms and conditions on which the matter has been settled, are mentioned in paragraph 5 of the petition. In terms thereof, the petitioner was obliged to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the second respondent in full and final settlement of all her claims. Out of this, she has stated to have received an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs; and the remaining balance of Rs. 2 lakhs has been handed over in the Court today by way of a demand draft bearing No. 919187 dated 05.08.2014 issued by Karnataka Bank Limited in favour, of complainant - Madhvi Pawar. An affidavit of the second respondent stating that the matter has been amicably settled and nothing remains due except the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2 lakhs which is to be received by her in Court today, has also been annexed to the petition. The complainant also specifically approbates this position in Court and further states that she: does not wish to continue with the prosecution and that the matter be now closed.

(3.) Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances; and since-this is a matter arising out of the domestic dispute, where all aspects of the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and now the complainant is also not interested in supporting the prosecution, the prospects of the success in the prosecution are greatly diminished and, therefore, it is best if a quietus is given to the matter. He, however, also points out under instructions, that the first petitioner has never been available to the Investigating Agency or to the Court and that he has been declared a Proclaimed Offender; and even in these proceedings, he is represented through an Attorney, namely, Smt. Pooja Kashyap.