Full Text
Translation output
"4f > $-69 & 74 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 834/2015 renudialani
, Petitioner 1iirough MnAjay Gupta, Adv. along with petitioner in person.
CRL.M.C. 834/2015 renudialani
, Petitioner 1iirough MnAjay Gupta, Adv. along with petitioner in person.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR
Through
Through
CRL.M.C. 771/2015
LALIT DUTTA
Through
LALIT DUTTA
Through
VERSUS
Respondents Mr.Satish Verma, APP for theState along with Insp. Ghanshyam, P.S.
North Rohini, inperson.
Mr.Vikrant Yadav, Adv. with Mr.Vivek Kr. Ghaudhary, Adv; for
R-2 along with respondent No.2 in person.
' .....Petitioner Mr.Vikrant Yadav, Adv. with
Mr.Vivek Kr. Ghaudhary, Adv. along with petitioner inperson.'
STATEGOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI&ORS Respondents
Through Mr.Satish Verma, APP for the State along with Insp. Rishi Pal Rana &
SI Sunny Kumar, PS Rani Bagh, in person.
Mr.Ajay Gupta, Adv.. for R-2 with respondent No.2 inperson.
2015:DHC:10749
North Rohini, inperson.
Mr.Vikrant Yadav, Adv. with Mr.Vivek Kr. Ghaudhary, Adv; for
R-2 along with respondent No.2 in person.
' .....Petitioner Mr.Vikrant Yadav, Adv. with
Mr.Vivek Kr. Ghaudhary, Adv. along with petitioner inperson.'
STATEGOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI&ORS Respondents
Through Mr.Satish Verma, APP for the State along with Insp. Rishi Pal Rana &
SI Sunny Kumar, PS Rani Bagh, in person.
Mr.Ajay Gupta, Adv.. for R-2 with respondent No.2 inperson.
2015:DHC:10749
CORAM;
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
02.03.2015 The petitioner and respondent No.2 are present in Court who have been identifiedby their respective counsel. Both are husband and wife.
The above mentioned two petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of
FIR No.254/2011, registered on 3"^ September, 2011, under Sections 498-
A/406 IPC, at Police Station Rani Bagh, Delhi and FIR No.73/2012 under
Sections 66/66A of Information Technology Act, District Outer, Police
Station North Rohini, Delhi. The aforesaid FIRs are registered on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 in respective cases.
Brief facts ofthe case are that marriage between Lalit Dutta andRenu
Dialani was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi on 4"^ November, 2009. Due to temperamental differences, they are living separately from each other since 25^ February, 2011. It is stated in the petitions that during the pendency ofthe proceedings, both the parties have settled their disputes. They have taken divorce by mutual consent on 31''
May, 2014. The parties have no objection if both the FIRs are quashed as they have compromised the matter on S'*" November, 2013 before Principal
Family Judge, Rohini, Delhi. Both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions.
In view ofthe averments made in the petitions, I am ofthe opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings arising
-r out of the above said FIRs. Accordingly, the proceedings arisen from the
FIR No.254/2011, registered on September, 2011, under Sections 498-
A/406 IPG, at Police Station Rani Bagh, Delhi and FIR No.73/2012 under
Sections 66/66A of Information Technology Act, District Outer, Police
Station North Rohini, Delhi, are hereby quashed.
Both the petitions stand disposed of Dasti.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
MARCH 02, 2015
02.03.2015 The petitioner and respondent No.2 are present in Court who have been identifiedby their respective counsel. Both are husband and wife.
The above mentioned two petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of
FIR No.254/2011, registered on 3"^ September, 2011, under Sections 498-
A/406 IPC, at Police Station Rani Bagh, Delhi and FIR No.73/2012 under
Sections 66/66A of Information Technology Act, District Outer, Police
Station North Rohini, Delhi. The aforesaid FIRs are registered on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 in respective cases.
Brief facts ofthe case are that marriage between Lalit Dutta andRenu
Dialani was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi on 4"^ November, 2009. Due to temperamental differences, they are living separately from each other since 25^ February, 2011. It is stated in the petitions that during the pendency ofthe proceedings, both the parties have settled their disputes. They have taken divorce by mutual consent on 31''
May, 2014. The parties have no objection if both the FIRs are quashed as they have compromised the matter on S'*" November, 2013 before Principal
Family Judge, Rohini, Delhi. Both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions.
In view ofthe averments made in the petitions, I am ofthe opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings arising
-r out of the above said FIRs. Accordingly, the proceedings arisen from the
FIR No.254/2011, registered on September, 2011, under Sections 498-
A/406 IPG, at Police Station Rani Bagh, Delhi and FIR No.73/2012 under
Sections 66/66A of Information Technology Act, District Outer, Police
Station North Rohini, Delhi, are hereby quashed.
Both the petitions stand disposed of Dasti.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
MARCH 02, 2015
JUDGMENT