Full Text
Translation output
#3
% 13.10.2011
Present: Petitioners in person with Ms. Kamlesh Shambharwal, Advocate.
Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the respondent No.l/State along with
SI William, CAW Cell, P.S. Kamla Marl<et (10).
Respondent no.2 in person with Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate &
Mr. Rajesh Kuma'rYadav, Advocate.
Petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are identified by their respective couns'jels as well as by 10 SI William, CAW Cell, P.S.
Kamla Market. /
+Crl.M.C. No.3050/2011
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR
No.211/2008 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. D.B.Gupta
Road against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2.
The reason for seeking quashing is that the FIR is the result of matrimonial discord which has been amicably settled in mediation proceedings conducted at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts. Copy of the settlement recorded in mediation which is duly signed by petitioner
Nos.l & 3 as well as respondent No.2 is annexed to the petition.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the settlement, petitioner No.l had agreed to pay ?1,25,000/- to respondent No.2 as full and final settlement of present past and future maintenance to respondent no.2. It is submitted that out of the settled amount, ?80,000/- has already been paid in cash to respondent No.2 in two instalments of ?40,000/- each and balance ?45,000/- is being paid today vide a demand draft bearing No.485530 dated 13.10.2011 drawn on
"V
2011:DHC:10250
, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. It is submitted that the petitioner
No.l and respondent No.2 have obtained mutual consent divorce and now there is no dispute left between the parties. Therefore, no fruitful purpose shall be served in keeping the FIR alive and it is urged that the FIR may be quashed.
Respondent No.2 confirms that she has entered into the settlement with the petitioners of her own accord without any inducement or threat.
She submits that in terms of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner, she has already received ?80,000/- in two instalments by cash and balance ?45,000/- is paid to her today vide a demand draft bearing No.485530 dated 13.10.2011 drawn on UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court branch. She submits that with the receipt of this amount, now there is no dispute left. Thus, she does not want the petitioners to be prosecuted on her complaint and she has no objection if the FiR is quashed.
^ Learned Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, State has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Since the parties have amicably settled the matter and have obtained consent divorce, I feel that no fruitful purpose shall be served in keeping the FIR and the proceedings arising out of the same alive.
Accordingly, the FIR No.211/2008 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC
> registered at P.S. D.B.Gupta Road and the proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
Petition stands disposed of.
OCTOBER 13, 2011 pst
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
% 13.10.2011
Present: Petitioners in person with Ms. Kamlesh Shambharwal, Advocate.
Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the respondent No.l/State along with
SI William, CAW Cell, P.S. Kamla Marl<et (10).
Respondent no.2 in person with Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate &
Mr. Rajesh Kuma'rYadav, Advocate.
Petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are identified by their respective couns'jels as well as by 10 SI William, CAW Cell, P.S.
Kamla Market. /
+Crl.M.C. No.3050/2011
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR
No.211/2008 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. D.B.Gupta
Road against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2.
The reason for seeking quashing is that the FIR is the result of matrimonial discord which has been amicably settled in mediation proceedings conducted at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts. Copy of the settlement recorded in mediation which is duly signed by petitioner
Nos.l & 3 as well as respondent No.2 is annexed to the petition.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the settlement, petitioner No.l had agreed to pay ?1,25,000/- to respondent No.2 as full and final settlement of present past and future maintenance to respondent no.2. It is submitted that out of the settled amount, ?80,000/- has already been paid in cash to respondent No.2 in two instalments of ?40,000/- each and balance ?45,000/- is being paid today vide a demand draft bearing No.485530 dated 13.10.2011 drawn on
"V
2011:DHC:10250
, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. It is submitted that the petitioner
No.l and respondent No.2 have obtained mutual consent divorce and now there is no dispute left between the parties. Therefore, no fruitful purpose shall be served in keeping the FIR alive and it is urged that the FIR may be quashed.
Respondent No.2 confirms that she has entered into the settlement with the petitioners of her own accord without any inducement or threat.
She submits that in terms of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner, she has already received ?80,000/- in two instalments by cash and balance ?45,000/- is paid to her today vide a demand draft bearing No.485530 dated 13.10.2011 drawn on UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court branch. She submits that with the receipt of this amount, now there is no dispute left. Thus, she does not want the petitioners to be prosecuted on her complaint and she has no objection if the FiR is quashed.
^ Learned Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, State has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Since the parties have amicably settled the matter and have obtained consent divorce, I feel that no fruitful purpose shall be served in keeping the FIR and the proceedings arising out of the same alive.
Accordingly, the FIR No.211/2008 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC
> registered at P.S. D.B.Gupta Road and the proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
Petition stands disposed of.
OCTOBER 13, 2011 pst
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
JUDGMENT