CRL.M.C./4409/2017 of SWARAN J BINDRA & ORS Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Parties
- SWARAN J BINDRA & 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
+CRL.M.C. 4409/2017
SWARAN J BINDRA & ORS..... Petitioners
ThroughMr. Karan S. Thukral and Mr. KapilKumar, Advs.Kumar, Advs.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.... RespondentsThroughMr. Izhar Ahmad, APP with SI ArunKumar, P.S. Tilak NagarMr. Sahil Munjal and Mr. ShashankGoswami, Advs. with respondent no.2ThroughMr. Izhar Ahmad, APP with SI ArunKumar, P.S. Tilak NagarMr. Sahil Munjal and Mr. ShashankGoswami, Advs. with respondent no.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%20.08.2018
Notice.Learned APPaccepts noticeforrespondent no. 1.Respondent no.2-Ms. Mandeep Kaur is present in Court along with hercounsel and accepts notice. She has been identified by SI Arun Kumar ofpolice station Tilak Nagar.
Respondent no.2 submits that she has settled the matter with thepetitioner no. 1 of her own free will and without any undue force, pressureor coercion. Respondent no. 2 further submits that she has already acceptedthe divorce decree granted by the Supreme Court of State of New York on7[th]April, 2016. Respondent no. 2 says that she has already withdrawn the
petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Act. Attorney of petitioner no. 1 had handed over demand draftof ₹5,00,000/- to respondent no. 2, vide demand draft, photocopy whereof has been placed on record. Respondent no. 2 says that entire settled amountof `20,00,000/- stands paid with this payment and she has no objection incase FIR no. 1447/2015 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered atpolice station Tilak Nagar and consequent proceedings emanating therefromare quashed against the petitioner no. 1 and his relatives, that is, petitionernos. 2 and 3.
Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the petitioners andrespondent no. 2 voluntarily, in my view, no fruitful purpose would beserved to keep the criminal proceedings pending.Accordingly, in theinterest of justice, aforesaid FIR and consequent proceedings emanatingtherefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
AUGUST 20, 2018r.bararia
A.K. PATHAK, J.