CRL.M.C./4355/2018 of SANGEETA DUTTA & ORS. Vs THE STATE & ANR.
Parties
- SANGEETA DUTTA & ORS (PETITIONER)
- THE STATE & 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
+CRL.M.C. 4355/2018
SANGEETA DUTTA & ORS...... PetitionersThroughMs. Sabhya Jain, Adv
versus
THE STATE & ANR.
..... Respondents
ThroughMs. Manjeet Arya, APP for StateSI Praveen, PS MandawliMr. Ajit Kumar, Adv for R-2 with R-2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%28.08.2018
Respondent no.2-Ritu Roy is present in Court and acceptsnotice.She has been identified by SI Praveen of police stationMandawali.
Respondent no.2 says that she was married to Subhash Roy(since deceased) on 5[th]May, 2004 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.On account of marital discord, their marriage was dissolved by adecree of divorce by mutual consent dated 18[th]December, 2007passed by Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.Subhash Roy has expired on 30[th]October, 2010. Petitioner nos. 1 to 3are relatives of deceased Subhash Roy.
Respondent no.2 submits that she has settled the matter with thepetitioner nos. 1 to 3 of her own free will and without any undue
force,pressureorcoercionbeforeDelhiMediationCentre,Karkardooma Courts on 3[rd]August, 2018. Respondent no. 2 furthersays that she has no objection in case FIR No. 703/2004 undersections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at police station Mandawali andthe consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between thepetitioners and respondent no. 2 voluntarily, in my view, no fruitfulpurpose would be served to keep the criminal proceedings pending.Accordingly, in the interest of justice, aforesaid FIR and theconsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
AUGUST 28, 2018sm
A.K. PATHAK, J