Full Text
Translation output
#
% 30.11.2010
Present: Mr. Abhay Kushwaha & Ms. Vandana Sharma, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP for the State.
Mr. Rajiv Hooda, Adv. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
+ Crl. M.C. No. 3594/2010
•k
Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married sometime in the year 2001. They could live together for hardly about three years. On the complaint of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are relatives of petitioner No. 1.
Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have resolved their disputes amicably before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation
Center in the year 2009. In terms of settlement, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have even obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent from the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi
I on 23'"'^ July, 2010. A sum of ^2 lacs had already been paid to respondent No. 2 by petitioner No. 1 tiU decree of divorce was granted. Remaining settled amount of ^1,25,000/- has been paid by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2 by way of pay order. A
2010:DHC:15358 photocopy whereof has been placed on record. Respondent No. 2 has no objection if the FIR m question is quashed.
Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the parties and in the larger interest I quash the FIR No.618/2005 under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPG registered at police station Tilak Nagar and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. itK. PATHAK, J.
NOVEMBER 30, 2010 rb
2010:DHC:15358
% 30.11.2010
Present: Mr. Abhay Kushwaha & Ms. Vandana Sharma, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP for the State.
Mr. Rajiv Hooda, Adv. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
+ Crl. M.C. No. 3594/2010
•k
Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married sometime in the year 2001. They could live together for hardly about three years. On the complaint of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are relatives of petitioner No. 1.
Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have resolved their disputes amicably before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation
Center in the year 2009. In terms of settlement, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have even obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent from the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi
I on 23'"'^ July, 2010. A sum of ^2 lacs had already been paid to respondent No. 2 by petitioner No. 1 tiU decree of divorce was granted. Remaining settled amount of ^1,25,000/- has been paid by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2 by way of pay order. A
2010:DHC:15358 photocopy whereof has been placed on record. Respondent No. 2 has no objection if the FIR m question is quashed.
Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the parties and in the larger interest I quash the FIR No.618/2005 under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPG registered at police station Tilak Nagar and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. itK. PATHAK, J.
NOVEMBER 30, 2010 rb
2010:DHC:15358
JUDGMENT