Full Text
Translation output
-j, '1
1+
TT o/o 23.I2.2OIO
Present: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Adv. for the petitioners.
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State- respondent no.l along with Mr. Kushagra Arora, Mr. Prabhakar and Ms. Damini Khaira, Advs along with SI
Rohit, P.S. Preet Vihar.
Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Adv. for the respondent no. 2 along with respondent no. 2 in person.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
+ W.P. (Crl.l 189O/2O1O
Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 were married sometime in the year 2008. On account of temperamental differences parties could live together hardly for six 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 13. Now, parties have settled their disputes before the Mediation Cell, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on l-5th March, 2O7O. In terms of the settlement, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.2 have decided to part ways. It was agreed between the parties that petitioner shall pay a sum of t34 lakhs to respondent NO. 2 towards all her claims of stri dhan, maintenance, permanent alimony of herself and minor child. A sum of {14 lakhs has already
{
2010:DHC:13160
/
')/ been paid to respondent no. 2 at the time of first motion and another glrm of t10 lakhs has been paid at the time of second motion.
Remaining amount of t10 lakhs has been paid today in the Court to respondent no. 2 through two demand drafts, photocopy whereof has been placed on record. In view of the settlement, respondent tto.2, who is present in person in the court, has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
Since, both the parties have decided to part ways and, in fact, have obtained divorce by way of mutual consent, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the present criminal proceedings pending.
Accordingly, in larger interest, FIR No. 49912009 under Sections
406/495A134 IPC registered at Police Station Preet Vihar and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti. e'-%
A.K. PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 23, ?OLO ga t
2010:DHC:13160
TT o/o 23.I2.2OIO
Present: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Adv. for the petitioners.
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State- respondent no.l along with Mr. Kushagra Arora, Mr. Prabhakar and Ms. Damini Khaira, Advs along with SI
Rohit, P.S. Preet Vihar.
Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Adv. for the respondent no. 2 along with respondent no. 2 in person.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
+ W.P. (Crl.l 189O/2O1O
Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 were married sometime in the year 2008. On account of temperamental differences parties could live together hardly for six 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 13. Now, parties have settled their disputes before the Mediation Cell, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on l-5th March, 2O7O. In terms of the settlement, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.2 have decided to part ways. It was agreed between the parties that petitioner shall pay a sum of t34 lakhs to respondent NO. 2 towards all her claims of stri dhan, maintenance, permanent alimony of herself and minor child. A sum of {14 lakhs has already
{
2010:DHC:13160
/
')/ been paid to respondent no. 2 at the time of first motion and another glrm of t10 lakhs has been paid at the time of second motion.
Remaining amount of t10 lakhs has been paid today in the Court to respondent no. 2 through two demand drafts, photocopy whereof has been placed on record. In view of the settlement, respondent tto.2, who is present in person in the court, has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
Since, both the parties have decided to part ways and, in fact, have obtained divorce by way of mutual consent, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the present criminal proceedings pending.
Accordingly, in larger interest, FIR No. 49912009 under Sections
406/495A134 IPC registered at Police Station Preet Vihar and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti. e'-%
A.K. PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 23, ?OLO ga t
2010:DHC:13160
JUDGMENT