Full Text
Translation output
#
% 14.12.2010
Present: Mr. S.R. Mahla, Adv. for the petitioners along with petitioner no. 1 in person.
Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State along with ASI Jaggu
Ram, P.S. Rohini.
Mr. .Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. for respondent no.2 along with respondent no. 2 in person.
+ Crl. M.A. 18510/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
+ Crl. M.C. 3873/2010
Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 were married sometime in the year 2007. On account of temperamental differences they could hardly live together for eight/nine months. On the complaint of respondent no. 2, FIR in question was registered against petitioner NO. 1 and his relatives i.e. petitioner nos. 2 to 10 at Police Station Rohini
(South) on 13th December, 2007. Petitioner and respondent no. 2 have settled their dispute amicably before the Mediation Cell, Rohini
Courts. Terms of settlement have been recorded in the proceeding sheet dated 6^ October, 2009 of Mediation Cell (Annexure P2 at page nos. 71 to 74). Parties shall be bound by the terms of settlement.
Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have decided to part ways. They
2010:DHC:9240 have obtained decree of divorce by way of mutual consent from the
Family Court, Rohini on 6^^ July, 20l0. In terms of the settlement remaining settled amount of ^40,000/- in the shape of FDR in favour of minor child Rishita has been handed over to respondent no. 2 by petitioner no. 1in Court today. Photocopy of the said FDR is placed on record. Respondent no.2 states that she has no objection if the
FIR is quashed.
Since both the parties have decided to part ways and, in fact, have obtained decree ofdivorce by way ofmutual consent, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping criminal case pending.
Accordingly, in larger interest, FIR No. 1167/2007 under Sections
498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Rohini (South) and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 14, 2010 ga
2010:DHC:9240
% 14.12.2010
Present: Mr. S.R. Mahla, Adv. for the petitioners along with petitioner no. 1 in person.
Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State along with ASI Jaggu
Ram, P.S. Rohini.
Mr. .Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. for respondent no.2 along with respondent no. 2 in person.
+ Crl. M.A. 18510/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
+ Crl. M.C. 3873/2010
Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 were married sometime in the year 2007. On account of temperamental differences they could hardly live together for eight/nine months. On the complaint of respondent no. 2, FIR in question was registered against petitioner NO. 1 and his relatives i.e. petitioner nos. 2 to 10 at Police Station Rohini
(South) on 13th December, 2007. Petitioner and respondent no. 2 have settled their dispute amicably before the Mediation Cell, Rohini
Courts. Terms of settlement have been recorded in the proceeding sheet dated 6^ October, 2009 of Mediation Cell (Annexure P2 at page nos. 71 to 74). Parties shall be bound by the terms of settlement.
Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have decided to part ways. They
2010:DHC:9240 have obtained decree of divorce by way of mutual consent from the
Family Court, Rohini on 6^^ July, 20l0. In terms of the settlement remaining settled amount of ^40,000/- in the shape of FDR in favour of minor child Rishita has been handed over to respondent no. 2 by petitioner no. 1in Court today. Photocopy of the said FDR is placed on record. Respondent no.2 states that she has no objection if the
FIR is quashed.
Since both the parties have decided to part ways and, in fact, have obtained decree ofdivorce by way ofmutual consent, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping criminal case pending.
Accordingly, in larger interest, FIR No. 1167/2007 under Sections
498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Rohini (South) and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 14, 2010 ga
2010:DHC:9240
JUDGMENT