Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 367/2010
SAROJ KUMAR BHUYAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.K. De, Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Mr. Udit Kumar, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 367/2010
SAROJ KUMAR BHUYAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.K. De, Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Mr. Udit Kumar, Advocates
VERSUS
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lau, APP for the StatelR-l
Mr. K.C. Narayan, Advocate for the R-2/complainant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lau, APP for the StatelR-l
Mr. K.C. Narayan, Advocate for the R-2/complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
°/• 05.02.2010
._.
°/• 05.02.2010
._.
CRL. M.A. 1283/2010
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 36712010 Notice. Mr. Lau accepts notice on behalf of the Statelrespondent no.!. Mr. Narayan accepts notice on behalfofthe respondent no. 2/complainant
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 37/2007 dated 16,h January, 2007 registered at Vasant Kunj police station under S!!ctions 498·N406/34 IPC as also the criminal proceedings arising there-from consequent upon the tiling of the charge-sheet by the police in the concerned Court. It is alleged that the matrimonial differences between the respondent no. 2/complainant and petitioner no. I have been resolved amicably and as a result thereof the marriage between the petitioner no. I and respondent no. 2 already stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 36712010 Notice. Mr. Lau accepts notice on behalf of the Statelrespondent no.!. Mr. Narayan accepts notice on behalfofthe respondent no. 2/complainant
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 37/2007 dated 16,h January, 2007 registered at Vasant Kunj police station under S!!ctions 498·N406/34 IPC as also the criminal proceedings arising there-from consequent upon the tiling of the charge-sheet by the police in the concerned Court. It is alleged that the matrimonial differences between the respondent no. 2/complainant and petitioner no. I have been resolved amicably and as a result thereof the marriage between the petitioner no. I and respondent no. 2 already stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide
ORDER
dated lih October, 2009 passed in HMA petition no.
70612009 by the Court of Ms. Raj Rani Mitra, ADJ, Delhi. This position is being accepted by the counsel for the respondent no. 2/complainant who further states
CRL.M.C.367/2010 Page 100
2010:DHC:8134 that all the mutual obligations to be performed in terms' of the compromise arri~ at between the parties have been fully performed by both the sides and filing ofthe present petition was the last step in order to draw the curtain on the matrimonial episode which has now ended amicably. Counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant also submits that in view of the settlement between the respondent no.2 and petitioner no.l, FIR of this case and criminal proceedings arising there-from against the petitioners can be quashed.
In view ofthe settlement between the husband and ",ife and also keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs State of
Haryana & Anr.", AIR 1003 SC 1386, learned APP for the State also does not oppose the quashing of the FIR and the ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioners, I am also of the view that since the matrimonial problem has been resolved amicably between the husband and wife no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings again.~t the petitioners. Therefore, this petition is allowed. The FIR No. 3712007 and criminal proceedings arising there-from are quashed.
P.K. BHASIN,J FEBRUARY 05,2010/pg CRL.M.C. 36712010
Page 2 on 2010:DHC:8134
70612009 by the Court of Ms. Raj Rani Mitra, ADJ, Delhi. This position is being accepted by the counsel for the respondent no. 2/complainant who further states
CRL.M.C.367/2010 Page 100
2010:DHC:8134 that all the mutual obligations to be performed in terms' of the compromise arri~ at between the parties have been fully performed by both the sides and filing ofthe present petition was the last step in order to draw the curtain on the matrimonial episode which has now ended amicably. Counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant also submits that in view of the settlement between the respondent no.2 and petitioner no.l, FIR of this case and criminal proceedings arising there-from against the petitioners can be quashed.
In view ofthe settlement between the husband and ",ife and also keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs State of
Haryana & Anr.", AIR 1003 SC 1386, learned APP for the State also does not oppose the quashing of the FIR and the ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioners, I am also of the view that since the matrimonial problem has been resolved amicably between the husband and wife no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings again.~t the petitioners. Therefore, this petition is allowed. The FIR No. 3712007 and criminal proceedings arising there-from are quashed.
P.K. BHASIN,J FEBRUARY 05,2010/pg CRL.M.C. 36712010
Page 2 on 2010:DHC:8134