CRL.M.C./2530/2018 of TARUN NOGIA & ORS Vs THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2018-05-11
Case number: 2530/2018

Parties

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+CRL.M.C. 2530/2018TARUN NOGIA & ORS (PETITIONER)
THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

TEST.CAS./31/2003 of MOHINDER SINGH Vs THE STATE AC+ (2017)

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

Show all Body

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+CRL.M.C. 2530/2018TARUN NOGIA & ORS..... PetitionersThrough:Mr.LajpatRaiandMr.ManishKumar, Advs.TARUN NOGIA & ORS..... PetitionersThrough:Mr.LajpatRaiandMr.ManishKumar, Advs.

versus

THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Amit Chadha, APP with SI VikasMudgal, P.S Khyala.Through:Mr. Amit Chadha, APP with SI VikasMudgal, P.S Khyala.

Mr. Rajender Gupta, Adv. for R-2with R-2 in person.with R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%11.05.2018

Notice. Learned APP accepts notice for respondent no.1. Respondent

no.2-Bhawna Kumari is also present in Court along with her counsel, whoaccepts notice.She has been identified by SI Vikas Mudgal of policestation Khyala.

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. Her marriage with petitioner no.1 has already been dissolved by adecree of divorce by mutual consent dated 22[nd]March, 2018 passed by theFamily Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.Petitioner no.1 haspaid `1.5 lacs to the respondent no.2 today in Court vide demand draft,

photocopy whereof has been placed on record.Respondent no.2 submitsthat with this payment entire settled amount of `4.5 lacs stands paid and shehas no objection in case FIR No.744/2014 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPCregistered at police station Khyala and the consequent proceedingsemanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner no.1 and hisrelatives, 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.