Pradeep Yadav & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr

Delhi High Court · 08 May 2012 · 2012:DHC:7986
V. K. Shali
CRL.M.C. 2190/2011
2012:DHC:7986
criminal appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed two FIRs arising from matrimonial disputes under its inherent powers after the parties settled amicably and the complainant expressed no objection.

Full Text
Translation output
$"'15-16 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2190/2011 (u/S 482 Cr.P.c.)
PRADEEP YADAV & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.M.R.Sii1gh, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through MS.Jasbir Kaur, APP Mr.Yashwant Yadav;. Adv. for the complainant
JUDGMENT

(16) CRL.M.C. 2222/2011 (u/S 482 Cr.P.c.) DHARAMPAL YADAV & ORS....,. Petitioners Through Mr.M.R.Singh, Adv.

VERSUS

STATE (GOVT.

OF NCT DELHI) & ANR.... ~ Respondents Through Ms.Jasbir Kia4r, APP along with 10 Sandeep Kumar, P.S•. Sunlight Colony. Mr.Yashwant Yadav,'Adv.for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE V.K. SHALl ORDER 0/0 08.05.2012

1. These are two petitions.

2. The first petition bearing CrI.M.C. no.2190/2011 is for quashing of FIR no.6/2011, u/S 406/498A/34 IPC registered by PS Crime Women Cell, Nanakpura in respect of which charge sheet is yet to be filed by the police.

3. The second petition bearing Crl.M.C. no.2222/2011 is for quashing of FIR no.440/2010, u/S 323/354/506/34 IPC 2012:DHC:7986 registered by PS Sunlight Colony, New Delhi.

4. In the first petition, Pradeep Yadav, husband, Dharampal Yadav/ father, Shimla Yadav/mother, Jyoti Yadav/sister are the parties. Affidavits of all the parties in support of the petitions for quashing of the FIRs, are on record.

5. The ground for quashing of the aforesaid two FIRs is that the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 have settled their matrimonial dispute. The respondent no.2 is also present in Court today.

6. The second FIR is against Dharampal Yadav, Shimla Yadav, Nand Kishore Sharma, Madan Sharma, Lalita Sharma arising out of the matrimonial dispute. Both these cases are stated to have been settled by a Memorandum of Settlement, copy of which has been placed on record in both the cases.

7. According to the said settlement dated 10.2.2011, Pradeep Yadav and Savita /respondent no.2 have got their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce obtained on the basis of mutual consent from the competent Court on 29.11.2011. Certified copy of the decree has been handed over in the Court and the same is taken on record.

S. It has also been stated that in terms Qf the said settlement, an amount of ~32 lacs was to be given by the petitioner no.1 to the,/ respondent no.2/complainant in respect of both these cases and the said amount has already been paid to her. Therefore, it is stated that as the matrimonial dispute having been settled, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforesaid two FIRs and the consequent proceedings alive.

9. The respondent no.2 is present in Court along with her counsel, though his power of attorney is not on record. The respondent no.2 is identified by the 10.

10. The complainant has stated that she has no objection to the quashing of both the FIRs on account of the fact that she has settled her matrimonial dispute with her husband Pradeep Yadav. She has also admitted that she has received the entire amount of ~32 lacs and consequently, she has no subsisting grievance for objecting the quashing of the FIRs. Affidavit in this regard has also been placed on record of both the cases.

3,714 characters total

11. The petitioners Pradeep Yadav, Dharampal Yadav, Nand Kishore Sharma are present in Court in both the cases.

12. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the order dated 27.9.11 by virtue of which the ladies alild some of the petitioners were exempted from personal appearance.

13. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner no.l and the respondent no.2 have settled their matrimonial dispute, which has culminated into passing a decree of divorce, no useful purpose would not served by keeping the FIRs and the consequent proceedings alive.

14. Accordingly, FIR no.6/2011, u/S 406/498A/34 IPC registered by PS Crime Women Cell, Nanakpura and FIR no.440/2010, u/S 323/354/506/34 IPC registered by PS Sunlight Colony, New Delhi and the consequent proceedings are quashed.

15. File be consigned to the Record Room. j'vrv-J'-S,,: V.K. SHALl, J MAY 08, 2012 RN./