Full Text
Translation output
a
X
$~10&11
* IN THE fflGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3558/2017
VIPUL ROHILLA & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv
X
$~10&11
* IN THE fflGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3558/2017
VIPUL ROHILLA & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv
VERSUS
STATENCT OF DELHI& ANR Respondents
Through Ms. Aasha Tiawri, APP for State
Mr.Rajesh K Kalia, AdvforR-2
Mr. B K Mishra, Adv for R-4/UC0
/ Bank
+ \J^RL.M.C. 3564/2017
VIPUL ROHILLA & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv
Through Ms. Aasha Tiawri, APP for State
Mr.Rajesh K Kalia, AdvforR-2
Mr. B K Mishra, Adv for R-4/UC0
/ Bank
+ \J^RL.M.C. 3564/2017
VIPUL ROHILLA & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv
VERSUS
STATENCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through Ms. Aasha Tiawri, APP for State
SI Harpal singh, PS Pahar Ganj
Mr. Rajesh K Kalia, Adv for R-2
Through Ms. Aasha Tiawri, APP for State
SI Harpal singh, PS Pahar Ganj
Mr. Rajesh K Kalia, Adv for R-2
CORAM;
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
% 24.08.2018
In both these cases, Mr. Vipul Rohilla, petitioner no.l is the husband ofrespondent no.2 Ms. Meenakshi. Marital discord between them let to registration offollowing two FIRs:- a) FIR No.138/2002 under sections 406/498-A/34 IPG registered at police station DBG Road, Delhi, on the complaint of Ms. 2018:DHC:8375
Meenakshi against Vipul Rohilla, petitioner no.l and his parents namely Sh. Sukhbir SinghRohillaand Smt. PremLata. b) FIRNo.93/2008 under sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPG registered at police station Paharganj, Delhi, on the complaint of Mr. Vipul
Rohilla against Ms. Meenakshi, her mother Smt. Rama Bajaj and
Manager, UCOBank,Paharganj Branch, Delhi.
It is submitted that Vipul Rohilla (husband) and Meenakshi (wife) have settled their disputes amicably. They have no objection in case aforesaid FIRs and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Petitioner no.l and respondent no.2 are present in the Court along with their counsels. They submit that they have amicably resolved their issues. It is also submitted that first motion has already been accepted by the Family Court and second motion is fixed for 29^''
August, 2018. They further submit that in view of the settlement arrived atbetween them, theyhaveno objection iftheirrespective FIRs are quashed.
Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.l and respondent no.2 voluntarily, inmy view, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the criminal proceedings pending.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, both the aforesaid FIRs and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Both the petitions are disposed ofinthe above terms. Dasti.
A.K.PATHAK,J
AUGUST 24,2018/sm
2018:DHC:8375
% 24.08.2018
In both these cases, Mr. Vipul Rohilla, petitioner no.l is the husband ofrespondent no.2 Ms. Meenakshi. Marital discord between them let to registration offollowing two FIRs:- a) FIR No.138/2002 under sections 406/498-A/34 IPG registered at police station DBG Road, Delhi, on the complaint of Ms. 2018:DHC:8375
Meenakshi against Vipul Rohilla, petitioner no.l and his parents namely Sh. Sukhbir SinghRohillaand Smt. PremLata. b) FIRNo.93/2008 under sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPG registered at police station Paharganj, Delhi, on the complaint of Mr. Vipul
Rohilla against Ms. Meenakshi, her mother Smt. Rama Bajaj and
Manager, UCOBank,Paharganj Branch, Delhi.
It is submitted that Vipul Rohilla (husband) and Meenakshi (wife) have settled their disputes amicably. They have no objection in case aforesaid FIRs and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Petitioner no.l and respondent no.2 are present in the Court along with their counsels. They submit that they have amicably resolved their issues. It is also submitted that first motion has already been accepted by the Family Court and second motion is fixed for 29^''
August, 2018. They further submit that in view of the settlement arrived atbetween them, theyhaveno objection iftheirrespective FIRs are quashed.
Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.l and respondent no.2 voluntarily, inmy view, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the criminal proceedings pending.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, both the aforesaid FIRs and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Both the petitions are disposed ofinthe above terms. Dasti.
A.K.PATHAK,J
AUGUST 24,2018/sm
2018:DHC:8375
JUDGMENT