W.P.(CRL)/471/2017 of DEEPAK DHALL & ORS. Vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Parties
- + W.P.(CRL) 471/2017 & Crl. M.A. No. 2620/2017 DEEPAK DHALL & ORS (PETITIONER)
- THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1)
Statutes cited (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 471/2017 & Crl. M.A. No. 2620/2017DEEPAK DHALL & ORS...... PetitionersThrough: Mr. Prashant Diwan, Adv.DEEPAK DHALL & ORS...... PetitionersThrough: Mr. Prashant Diwan, Adv.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR...... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing CounselwithMr. JamalAkhtar,Adv. &W/ASISagamiDevi,P.S.NorthRohini for the respondent no. 1Mr.LalitKumar,Adv.withrespondent no. 2Through:Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing CounselwithMr. JamalAkhtar,Adv. &W/ASISagamiDevi,P.S.NorthRohini for the respondent no. 1Mr.LalitKumar,Adv.withrespondent no. 2
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R R%14.02.2017
Issue show cause notice to the respondents.Learned StandingCounsel accepts notice for respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 2 is present inperson along with her counsel and accepts notice.
It is submitted that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have settledtheir disputes amicably before Delhi Mediation Centre , Rohini Courts,Delhi on 27[th]June, 2016. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are relatives of petitionerno. 1. Marriage of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has already beendissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 7[th]February, 2017
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts (North-West District),Rohini Courts, Delhi. Respondent no. 2 is present in Court today and hasbeen identified by W/ASI Sagami Devi, P.S. North Rohini. Respondent no.2 submits that she has already received `7 lacs out of the settled amount of`9 lacs.Petitioner no. 1 has paid `2 lacs to the respondent no. 2 vide ademand draft bearing no. 128558 dated 6[th]February, 2017 drawn on CanaraBank today in Court. She further submits that she has no objection in caseFIR is quashed.
Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the parties and thatthe marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has alreadybeen dissolved, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the criminalproceedings pending.Accordingly, FIR No. 4/2016 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station North Rohini and the consequentproceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous applicationis disposed of as infructuous. Dasti.
FEBRUARY 14, 2017rb
A.K. PATHAK, J.