Full Text
Translation output
$-9&62 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL)1772/2015
NEERAJ SINGHAL & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.S C Singhal,Advocate
W.P.(CRL)1772/2015
NEERAJ SINGHAL & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.S C Singhal,Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE OF DELHI& ANR Respondents
Through Mr.R S Kundu,ASC forthe State SI Arvind Kumar,CAW Cell(E)
Through Mr.R S Kundu,ASC forthe State SI Arvind Kumar,CAW Cell(E)
AND
CRL.M.C.2074/2016
NEERAJ SINGHAL Petitioner
Through Mr.S C Singhal,Advocate
NEERAJ SINGHAL Petitioner
Through Mr.S C Singhal,Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE OF DELHI& ANR Respondents
Through Mr.Mukesh Kumar,APP forthe State Insp.Jaswinder Singh,LOW Cell
Through Mr.Mukesh Kumar,APP forthe State Insp.Jaswinder Singh,LOW Cell
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.PATHAK
28.07.2016 On the complaint of respondent No.2, following two FIRs were registered: ..
(A). FIR No.61/2013 under Sections 498A/406/34IPG atPolice Station
Anand Vihar,Delhi.
(B). FIR No. 182/2013 under Sections 66/66C at Police Station LOW
Cell,Delhi.
Petitioner Neeraj Singhal and respondentNo.2,Ms.Sanchya Singhal were married on 09.02.2012; their relations became strained, which led to
2016:DHC:9038 registration ofthe above FIRs.
As regards FIR under Sections 66/66C I.T. Act is concerned, complainant has alleged that her laptop and mobile were in custody of petitioner, Shri Neeraj Singhal in the third week of November, 2012 and during thatperiod,he had hacked herID.
Petitioner Neeraj Singhal and respondentNo.2- Ms.Sanchya Singhal have settled their disputes vide Compromise/Memorandum of
Understanding dated 15.02.2013 and Supplement Compromise Deed-cum-
Settlement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.08.2014, photocopies whereof have been placed on record. It is submitted that marriage of Shri
Neeraj Singhal and Ms. Sanchya Singhal has already been dissolved by a decree ofdivorce by mutual consent,on 11.05.2016. Ms.Sanchya Singhal is present in Court along with with her counsel and has also been identified by Inspector Jaswinder Singh ofEOW Cell. She states that she has received the entire settled amount and has no objection if FIRs are quashed. She further submits that ifany liability falls on her,on account ofthe use ofher laptop/mobile by the petitioner during the third week of November,2012, the same shall be the responsibility ofShri Neeraj Singhal. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that petitioner no.l consents to taking such liability upon himself. Shri Neeraj Singhal shall remain bound by this statement. Keeping in mind that the parties have settled their disputes and thier marraige has been dissolved by a decree ofdivorce by mutual consent, no useful purpose will be served to keep entangled in the above criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, both the FIRs and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
The petitions are disposed ofin the above terms.
Dasti.
JULY 28,2016 P A.K. ATHAK,J.
28.07.2016 On the complaint of respondent No.2, following two FIRs were registered: ..
(A). FIR No.61/2013 under Sections 498A/406/34IPG atPolice Station
Anand Vihar,Delhi.
(B). FIR No. 182/2013 under Sections 66/66C at Police Station LOW
Cell,Delhi.
Petitioner Neeraj Singhal and respondentNo.2,Ms.Sanchya Singhal were married on 09.02.2012; their relations became strained, which led to
2016:DHC:9038 registration ofthe above FIRs.
As regards FIR under Sections 66/66C I.T. Act is concerned, complainant has alleged that her laptop and mobile were in custody of petitioner, Shri Neeraj Singhal in the third week of November, 2012 and during thatperiod,he had hacked herID.
Petitioner Neeraj Singhal and respondentNo.2- Ms.Sanchya Singhal have settled their disputes vide Compromise/Memorandum of
Understanding dated 15.02.2013 and Supplement Compromise Deed-cum-
Settlement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.08.2014, photocopies whereof have been placed on record. It is submitted that marriage of Shri
Neeraj Singhal and Ms. Sanchya Singhal has already been dissolved by a decree ofdivorce by mutual consent,on 11.05.2016. Ms.Sanchya Singhal is present in Court along with with her counsel and has also been identified by Inspector Jaswinder Singh ofEOW Cell. She states that she has received the entire settled amount and has no objection if FIRs are quashed. She further submits that ifany liability falls on her,on account ofthe use ofher laptop/mobile by the petitioner during the third week of November,2012, the same shall be the responsibility ofShri Neeraj Singhal. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that petitioner no.l consents to taking such liability upon himself. Shri Neeraj Singhal shall remain bound by this statement. Keeping in mind that the parties have settled their disputes and thier marraige has been dissolved by a decree ofdivorce by mutual consent, no useful purpose will be served to keep entangled in the above criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, both the FIRs and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
The petitions are disposed ofin the above terms.
Dasti.
JULY 28,2016 P A.K. ATHAK,J.
JUDGMENT