CRL.M.C./4476/2017 of MUKESH KUMAR MISHRA Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Parties
- MUKESH KUMAR MISHRA (PETITIONER)
- THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS (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. 4476/2017
MUKESH KUMAR MISHRA..... PetitionerThroughMr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Adv.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS..... RespondentsThroughDr. M.P. Singh, APP with SI PraveenKumar of police station MandawaliFazalpurRespondent nos. 2 and 3 in personThroughDr. M.P. Singh, APP with SI PraveenKumar of police station MandawaliFazalpurRespondent nos. 2 and 3 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R R07.08.2018
Respondent no. 3 is daughter of respondent no. 2. Respondent nos. 2and 3 are present in Court and have been identified by SI Praveen Kumar ofpolice station Mandawali Fazalpur. FIR no. 130/2008 under Sections363/368/342/506 IPC was registered at police station Mandawali Fazalpuron the complaint of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 has alleged in theFIR that his daughter, that is, respondent no.3 was missing from the house.Respondent no. 2 further alleged in FIR that he suspected that petitioner hadtaken away respondent no. 3 with him after enticing her.He along withpolice official visited the house of petitioner and found his daughter under
the bed. Respondent no. 2 gave the age of respondent no. 3 as 15 years and7 months. It is submitted that petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3 havesettled the matter amicably. It is submitted that marriage of petitioner withrespondent no. 3 has been solemnized after she attained majority. Presently,petitioner and respondent no. 3 are living together, inasmuch as threechildren have born from their wedlock. It is submitted that marriage wassolemnized with the consent of respondent no.2.
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 say that they have no objection in case FIRand consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the petitioner andprivate respondents 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 07, 2018
r.bararia
A.K. PATHAK, J.