CRL.M.C./4685/2018 of RAJINDER SINGH & ORS Vs THE STATE & ANR
Parties
- RAJINDER SINGH & ORS (PETITIONER)
- THE STATE & ANR (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
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. 4685/2018 and Crl. M.A. no. 32089/2018
RAJINDER SINGH & ORS..... PetitionersThroughMr. Amit Dhankhar, Adv.ThroughMr. Amit Dhankhar, Adv.
versus
THE STATE & ANR..... Respondents
ThroughMr. Rajat Katyal, APP with ASIGajender Singh, P.S. Mahendra ParkMr.ManishRathore,Adv.withrespondent no. 2 in personGajender Singh, P.S. Mahendra ParkMr.ManishRathore,Adv.withrespondent no. 2 in person
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R R%14.09.2018
Notice.Learned APPaccepts noticeforrespondent no. 1.Respondent no.2-Ms. Manpreet Kaur @ Rajji is present in Court along withher counsel and accepts notice. She has been identified by ASI GajenderSingh of police Mahendra Park.
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 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi on 18[th]November. 2011.Respondent no. 2 submits that her marriage withpetitioner no.1 has already been dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual
consent dated 18[th]July, 2018 passed by the Family Courts, North District,Rohini Courts, Delhi. Petitioner no. 1 has paid `50,000/- to the respondentno. 2, vide demand draft, photocopy whereof has been placed on record.Respondent no. 2 says that entire settled amount of `1,50,000/- stands paidwith this payment and she has no objection in case FIR no. 420/2015 underSections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mahendra Park andconsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against thepetitioner no. 1 and his relatives, that is, petitioner nos. 2 to 4.
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. Miscellaneous applicationis disposed of as infructuous. Dasti.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018
r.bararia
A.K. PATHAK, J.