19 July 2024 FIR >> Criminal Law   |   Divorce Law >> Family Law   |   Family dispute >> Family Law  

In a notable judicial decision, the High Court has annulled FIR No. 54/2018, which had been filed under sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The ruling emerged from a petition challenging the FIR filed by Sh. Anupam Gahoi v/s State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & Another; a former husband against his ex-wife, set against the backdrop of a recent legal shift with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This decision underscores the court's role in resolving legal disputes through settlements, reinforcing the principle that judicial resources are best utilized in fostering peace and harmony among parties.

Background:

The petition was submitted by the petitioner, who is the ex-husband of respondent No. 2. The case pertains to allegations of cruelty and misappropriation of property. However, the legal landscape shifted on July 1, 2024, with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Under the BNSS, ongoing proceedings must generally follow the new legal framework. Despite this, the court chose to address the petition under the existing Cr.P.C. provisions to prevent unnecessary delays.

Settlement and Divorce:

Central to the petition's resolution was a Settlement Deed dated March 15, 2021, and a subsequent Divorce Decree dated April 20, 2022. Both documents were the result of mediation before the Family Courts in North West Rohini, Delhi, and mutual consent between the parties. The settlement addressed various issues, including the transfer of property and arrangements for the couple’s children.

 

 

Court’s Ruling:

The High Court noted that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had adhered to the terms of their settlement, including the transfer of property to respondent No. 2 and provisions for the children’s welfare. Both parties appeared via video conferencing, and their identities were verified.

The State, represented by Ms. Shubhi Gupta, confirmed that there were no objections to quashing the FIR. The court observed that continuing with the FIR and related proceedings would be futile and counterproductive, given the settlement.

Impact on Children:

The court emphasized that the quashing of the FIR and closure of proceedings would not impact the legal rights of the couple's children—Charu, aged 17, and Rahul, aged 19—regarding their father. This aspect ensures that the children’s rights remain protected under the law.

Conclusion:

In light of the settlement and the Supreme Court’s precedents set in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, the court concluded that the FIR and all related proceedings should be quashed. The petition was thus disposed of, with any pending applications also being resolved. This decision highlights the court’s commitment to upholding settlements and maintaining legal harmony between parties, while safeguarding the rights of children involved.