Full Text
Translation output
V*'
% 26.05.2011
Present: Dr. Vimal Ray Verma, Mr. Mukesh Chand Sharma and Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. Arvind Gupta, APP for the State along with Insp.
M.L. Meena and ASI Satbir Singh, P.S. Hari Nagar.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv. for respondent NO. 2 along with respondent no. 2 in person.
Crl.
M.A. No. 6376/2011
*
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
+ Crl. M.C. No. 1767/2011
Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are husband and wife respectively. They were married on 26^^ June, 2007 as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. On the complaint of respondent NO. 2, FIR No. 96/2010 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPG was registered against petitioner no. 1 and his relatives i.e. petitioner nos. 2 to 8 at Police Station Hari Nagar. It may be noted here that Mother-in-law of respondent no.2, namely Smt. Sulekha
Talwar, has also filed an application under Section 156 (3)
Gr.P.G. Pursuant to the directions of Metropolitan Magistrate passed in the said application, FIR No. 53/2010 under Sections
341/353/380/506/34 IPG was registered against respondent no. 2 and her relatives i.e. petitioners in Grl. M.G. 1766/2011 at
Police Station Hari Nagar.
2011:DHC:12413
2.
Now, with the assistance of learned Mediator, Delhi
Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have settled their disputes amicably. Terms of settlement have been recorded in Deed of Compromise dated 7th March, 2011. Both the parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. In terms of the settlement, husband and wife have decided to part ways. First motion under Section 13-B(1) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has already been accepted by the
Additional District Judge. In terms of the settlement, a sum of
^75,000/- has already been given to respondent no.2 apart from stridhan and other dowry articles by petitioner no. 1.
Respondent no.2, who is present in Court has no objection in case FIR No. 96/2010 is quashed.
Keeping in mind that both the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have decided to part ways, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceeding pending. Accordingly, in the larger interest, FIR NO. 96/2010 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at Police Station
Hari Nagar and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
May 26, 2011 ga
A.K. PATHAK, J.
Present: Dr. Vimal Ray Verma, Mr. Mukesh Chand Sharma and Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. Arvind Gupta, APP for the State along with Insp.
M.L. Meena and ASI Satbir Singh, P.S. Hari Nagar.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv. for respondent NO. 2 along with respondent no. 2 in person.
Crl.
M.A. No. 6376/2011
*
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
+ Crl. M.C. No. 1767/2011
Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are husband and wife respectively. They were married on 26^^ June, 2007 as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. On the complaint of respondent NO. 2, FIR No. 96/2010 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPG was registered against petitioner no. 1 and his relatives i.e. petitioner nos. 2 to 8 at Police Station Hari Nagar. It may be noted here that Mother-in-law of respondent no.2, namely Smt. Sulekha
Talwar, has also filed an application under Section 156 (3)
Gr.P.G. Pursuant to the directions of Metropolitan Magistrate passed in the said application, FIR No. 53/2010 under Sections
341/353/380/506/34 IPG was registered against respondent no. 2 and her relatives i.e. petitioners in Grl. M.G. 1766/2011 at
Police Station Hari Nagar.
2011:DHC:12413
2.
Now, with the assistance of learned Mediator, Delhi
Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have settled their disputes amicably. Terms of settlement have been recorded in Deed of Compromise dated 7th March, 2011. Both the parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. In terms of the settlement, husband and wife have decided to part ways. First motion under Section 13-B(1) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has already been accepted by the
Additional District Judge. In terms of the settlement, a sum of
^75,000/- has already been given to respondent no.2 apart from stridhan and other dowry articles by petitioner no. 1.
Respondent no.2, who is present in Court has no objection in case FIR No. 96/2010 is quashed.
Keeping in mind that both the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have decided to part ways, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceeding pending. Accordingly, in the larger interest, FIR NO. 96/2010 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at Police Station
Hari Nagar and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
May 26, 2011 ga
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JUDGMENT