Full Text
Translation output
i
% 01.06.2011
Present: Mr. Suresh Chandra and Mr. P.K. Dash, Advs. for the petitioners with petitioners in person.
Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
+ Crl. M.C. No. 1904/2011
*
Ms. Renu daughter of petitioner No. 1 and sister of petitioner
No. 2 married respondent No. 2 in Arya Samaj Mandir on
February, 2004, against the wishes of their family members. After the marriage, petitioner No. 1 and his wife went to the house of respondent No. 2 and took away Renu with them, in the absence of respondent No. 2. When respondent No. 2 returned home he found his wife Renu missing. He filed a petition before the Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, pursuant whereof search warrants were issued; Ms. Renu was recovered from her parents' house. Thereafter, FIR under Section 365 IPC was registered against the petitioners. Now, petitioners and respondent No. 2 have settled their disputes amicably being close relatives, inasmuch as, both the families want to maintain harmonious relations in future.
Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court today, has no objection
2011:DHC:12585 in case FIR in question registered against his father-in-law and brother-in-law is quashed.
Keeping in mind the fact that petitioners and respondent
No. 2 are closely related to each other and have arrived at an amicable settlement in order to maintain harmonious relation in future, in the larger interest, FIR No. 381/2004 under Section 365
IPC registered at Police Station Gokul Puri and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
June 01, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:12585
% 01.06.2011
Present: Mr. Suresh Chandra and Mr. P.K. Dash, Advs. for the petitioners with petitioners in person.
Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
+ Crl. M.C. No. 1904/2011
*
Ms. Renu daughter of petitioner No. 1 and sister of petitioner
No. 2 married respondent No. 2 in Arya Samaj Mandir on
February, 2004, against the wishes of their family members. After the marriage, petitioner No. 1 and his wife went to the house of respondent No. 2 and took away Renu with them, in the absence of respondent No. 2. When respondent No. 2 returned home he found his wife Renu missing. He filed a petition before the Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, pursuant whereof search warrants were issued; Ms. Renu was recovered from her parents' house. Thereafter, FIR under Section 365 IPC was registered against the petitioners. Now, petitioners and respondent No. 2 have settled their disputes amicably being close relatives, inasmuch as, both the families want to maintain harmonious relations in future.
Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court today, has no objection
2011:DHC:12585 in case FIR in question registered against his father-in-law and brother-in-law is quashed.
Keeping in mind the fact that petitioners and respondent
No. 2 are closely related to each other and have arrived at an amicable settlement in order to maintain harmonious relation in future, in the larger interest, FIR No. 381/2004 under Section 365
IPC registered at Police Station Gokul Puri and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
June 01, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:12585
JUDGMENT