CRL.M.C./1615/2018 of SAURABH TYAGI & ORS Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Parties
- INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+CRL.M.C. 1615/2018SAURABH TYAGI & ORS (PETITIONER)
- THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI& ANR (RESPONDENT)
Cites (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
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+CRL.M.C. 1615/2018SAURABH TYAGI & ORS..... PetitionersThrough:Mr.RajeevTyagi,Mr.ShambhuSharanShuklaandMr.RajeshPandey, Advs.SAURABH TYAGI & ORS..... PetitionersThrough:Mr.RajeevTyagi,Mr.ShambhuSharanShuklaandMr.RajeshPandey, Advs.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI& ANR..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Amit Chadha, APP with SI VedPrakash, P.S. S.B. Dairy.Mr. Sanjay Soti, Adv. for R-2 withR-2 in person.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%11.05.2018
Notice could not be issued to the respondent no.2 as process fee wasnot filed.However, respondent no.2-Swati Tyagi is present in Court alongwith her counsel who accepts notice. She has been identified by SI VedPrakash of police station Shahbad Dairy.
Respondent no.2 submits that she has settled the matter with thepetitioner no.1 of her own free will and without any undue force, pressure orcoercion before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Court, New Delhi on 6[th]March, 2017. Her marriage with petitioner no.1 has already been dissolvedby decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 7[th]December, 2017 by the
Family Court, North District, Rohini, Delhi. Petitioner no.1 has paid `7.5lacs to the respondent no.2 today in Court vide demand draft, photocopywhereof has been placed on record. Respondent no.2 submits that with thispayment entire settled amount of `27.5 lacs stands paid and she has noobjection in case FIR No. 736/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPCandSection 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961registered at police station ShahbadDairy and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashedagainst the petitioner no.1 and his relatives, that is, petitioner nos. 2 to 4.
Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the petitioner no.1and respondent no.2 voluntarily, in my view, no fruitful purpose would beserved in keeping the criminal proceedings.Accordingly, in the interest ofjustice, aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefromare quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.Miscellaneous applicationis disposed of as infructuous.
Dasti.
MAY 11, 2018ga
A.K. PATHAK, J.