Full Text
CRLM.C. 2630/2011 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 9382-83/2011
HEMANT DEWAN & ORS. Petitioners Tlirough: |vir. S. C. Buttar, Adv.
10.08.2011
ORDER
1. This is a petition filed by four petitioners for the quashing of the FIR No. 81/2009, under Section 498A/406/34 IPG registered by P.S. Shaiimar Bagh, Delhi in respect of which the trial is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Gourts, Delhi. The ground for quashing of the FIR is that the petitioner no.l/Hemant Dewan has settled all his matrimonial disputes with the respondent no.2/Sapna Rani as a consequence of which the divorce has been obtained on the basis of mutual consent from the competent Gourt on 11.07.2011. In terms of the settlement, the petitioner no.l has already paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent no.2 at the time of divorce and the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is being paid today in Gourt by way of Pay Orders to the respondent no.2/Sapna Rani. All the petitioners are present in Gourt and are duly identified by the (5 2011:DHC:8979 y learned counsel. The respondent no. 2 is also present along with her counsel and is also identified by her counsel. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 states that she has no objection in case the FIR and the consequent proceedings that are pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are quashed on account of the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The respondent no.2/Sapna Rani has already received a total sum of ^5,00,000/- in terms of the settlement dated 19.09.2010 and has already obtained divorce from the petitioner no.l.
2. Having regard to the fact that the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner no.l and the respondent no. 2 have been settled by obtaining divorce on the basis of mutual consent, I feel that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the FIR and the consequent proceedings pending against the petitioners.
3. Accordingly, the FIR No. 81/2009, under Section 498A/406/34 IPG registered by P.S. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and the consequent proceedings which are pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are quashed.
4. The petition is disposed of.
5. Both the parties are left to bear their own costs. V.K. SHALI,J AUGUST 10, 2011/ KP %