Full Text
Translation output
>•
-13 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1959/2016
PANKAJ SHARMA &ORS Petitioner Represented by: Mr. SumitKumar, Adv. with petitioners.
-13 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1959/2016
PANKAJ SHARMA &ORS Petitioner Represented by: Mr. SumitKumar, Adv. with petitioners.
VERSUS
THE STATE (NCI OF DELHI) &ANR Respondent Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP with SI
Manish Kumar, Spl. Cell/Lodhi Colony.
R-2 in person.
Manish Kumar, Spl. Cell/Lodhi Colony.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
0/^ 15.09.2016 r.ri M.A. 8296/2016 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in refiling the petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of. r.rlM.C. 1959/2016
By the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR
No.526/2012 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Mandawali on the complainant ofrespondent No.2 and proceedings pursuant thereto as the parties have settled the matter.
Learned APP for the State submits that though in the abovementioned
FIR, all the nine petitioners were named however in the charge sheet petitioner No.8 was kept in column No.2 and petitioners No.4 and 9, who were minor atthe time ofincident, were not even charge sheeted.
2016:DHC:9037 Respondent No.2 is present in Court and is identified by the investigating officer. She states that she has settled the matter with the petitioners and as per the settlement, divorce by mutual consent has been granted between petitioner No.l and respondent no.2. In lieu of all her claims towards maintenance/stridhan/permanent alimony etc., respondent
No.2 was entitled to receive a sum of ^16 lakhs from the petitioners out of which she has already received ?11 lakhs and remaining amount of?51akhs, she has received today by way of Manager's Cheque No.021866 dated
12.9.2016 drawn onHDFC Bank, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi-110034 favouring Aditya Sharma under the guardianship ofrespondent No.2. She further submits that child Aditya Sharma bom out of the wedlock would remain inthe care and custody ofrespondent No.2 and the petitioners would have no visitation rights ofthe child. She states that she does not wish to pursue the above noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. The petitioner who are present in Court and are identified by leamed counsel affirm the statement ofrespondent No.2 and state that they will abide by the terms of settlement.
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences oftheir own free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.
Consequently, FIR No.526/2012 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Mandawali, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are
?• hereby quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
Thepetition is disposed of. Order dasti.
SEPTEMBER 15,2016 'vkm'
0/^ 15.09.2016 r.ri M.A. 8296/2016 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in refiling the petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of. r.rlM.C. 1959/2016
By the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR
No.526/2012 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Mandawali on the complainant ofrespondent No.2 and proceedings pursuant thereto as the parties have settled the matter.
Learned APP for the State submits that though in the abovementioned
FIR, all the nine petitioners were named however in the charge sheet petitioner No.8 was kept in column No.2 and petitioners No.4 and 9, who were minor atthe time ofincident, were not even charge sheeted.
2016:DHC:9037 Respondent No.2 is present in Court and is identified by the investigating officer. She states that she has settled the matter with the petitioners and as per the settlement, divorce by mutual consent has been granted between petitioner No.l and respondent no.2. In lieu of all her claims towards maintenance/stridhan/permanent alimony etc., respondent
No.2 was entitled to receive a sum of ^16 lakhs from the petitioners out of which she has already received ?11 lakhs and remaining amount of?51akhs, she has received today by way of Manager's Cheque No.021866 dated
12.9.2016 drawn onHDFC Bank, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi-110034 favouring Aditya Sharma under the guardianship ofrespondent No.2. She further submits that child Aditya Sharma bom out of the wedlock would remain inthe care and custody ofrespondent No.2 and the petitioners would have no visitation rights ofthe child. She states that she does not wish to pursue the above noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. The petitioner who are present in Court and are identified by leamed counsel affirm the statement ofrespondent No.2 and state that they will abide by the terms of settlement.
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences oftheir own free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.
Consequently, FIR No.526/2012 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Mandawali, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are
?• hereby quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
Thepetition is disposed of. Order dasti.
SEPTEMBER 15,2016 'vkm'
ORDER
0 I <^ r0' MUKTA GUPTA, J. ^ Wv-vt^ rv^c}\jeJ D'DN ^c>l-\^CC 11-I )1^ S - \_jexJ- P' c ^,[7] / 3>eiiv; ') S)vxa>y^ |V