$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd September, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 4809/2019
SH. SHUBHAM BHATT & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Vaghisha Kochar, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State with
SI Sumit Kumar, PS Ranjit Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek direction thereby quashing FIR No. 332 dated 26th July, 2016, registered at PS Ranjit Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Notice issued.
3. Notice is accepted by learned APP for the State and respondent no. 2 and with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.
CRL.M.C.4809/2019 Page 1 of 3
4. The petitioner and respondent no. 2 got married on 20th April, 2012 as per Hindu rites and rituals.
5. The petitioners and respondent no.2 have with the intervention of their well wishers and relatives entered into an amicable settlement by mutual consent. They had started living together as husband and wife happily and settled all their disputes amicably.
6. The respondent no. 2/complainant is present in person in the Court and has been identified by SI Sumit Kumar of Police Station Ranjit Nagar and submits that matter has been settled and she does not wish to prosecute the matter any further.
7. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to quash the concerned FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners any further.
8. For the reasons afore-recorded, the FIR No. 332 dated 26th July, 2016, registered at PS Ranjit Nagar instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed of. CRL.M.C.4809/2019 Page 2 of 3
10. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE SEPTEMEBR 23, 2019 v CRL.M.C.4809/2019 Page 3 of 3