Full Text
Translation output
97# $~ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1603/2011
WARREN JONATHAN & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.S. Bhati and Meenakshi Mohan, Advocate with Petitioners in person.
CRL.M.C. 1603/2011
WARREN JONATHAN & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.S. Bhati and Meenakshi Mohan, Advocate with Petitioners in person.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State with SI Ranbir Singh, PS Muldierjee
Nagar, Delhi.
Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 with Respondent
No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State with SI Ranbir Singh, PS Muldierjee
Nagar, Delhi.
Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 with Respondent
No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
18.05.2011 CrI.
M.A. No. 5890/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
18.05.2011 CrI.
M.A. No. 5890/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 1603/2011
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 226/2010 under Sections
498A/406 IPG registered at PS Muldierjee Nagar, Delhi.
The Complainant/Respondent No. 2 Ms. Veronica Michael is present inperson and is identified by her counsel and the Investigating Officer. She states that Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 were married as per the
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 226/2010 under Sections
498A/406 IPG registered at PS Muldierjee Nagar, Delhi.
The Complainant/Respondent No. 2 Ms. Veronica Michael is present inperson and is identified by her counsel and the Investigating Officer. She states that Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 were married as per the
CRL.M.C. 1603/2011
2011:DHC:15459 Christian Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. She states that the Petitioners and
Respondent No.2/Complainant have entered into a Compromise and in terms of the settlement the Petitioner No.l and Respondent No. 2 are seeking divorce by mutual consent as per the Indian Divorce Act. In terms of the settlement, the first motion of divorce by mutual consent has already been granted and the second motion of divorce by mutual is pending and is listed for today, that is, IS^*" May, 2011. As full and final settlement of all the claims of the Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner No. 1 has to pay laldis out of which ^3 lakhs have already been paid to her and ?2 lakhs will be paid to her today at the time of recording of statement under the Second Motion petition for divorce by mutual consent. She further states that in view of the settlement between the parties, she does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be appropriate to quashthe abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
2011:DHC:15459 Christian Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. She states that the Petitioners and
Respondent No.2/Complainant have entered into a Compromise and in terms of the settlement the Petitioner No.l and Respondent No. 2 are seeking divorce by mutual consent as per the Indian Divorce Act. In terms of the settlement, the first motion of divorce by mutual consent has already been granted and the second motion of divorce by mutual is pending and is listed for today, that is, IS^*" May, 2011. As full and final settlement of all the claims of the Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner No. 1 has to pay laldis out of which ^3 lakhs have already been paid to her and ?2 lakhs will be paid to her today at the time of recording of statement under the Second Motion petition for divorce by mutual consent. She further states that in view of the settlement between the parties, she does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be appropriate to quashthe abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
CRL.M.C. 1603/2011 Page 2 of3
Consequently, FIR No. 226/2010 under Sections 498A/406 IPG registered at PS Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements before this Court.
The petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 18, 2011 'vn'
Consequently, FIR No. 226/2010 under Sections 498A/406 IPG registered at PS Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements before this Court.
The petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 18, 2011 'vn'
CRL.M.C. 1603/2011 ^
JUDGMENT