Sh.Anuj Saxena & Others vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Another
2008 Latest Caselaw 1550 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        CRL.M.C.No.2718/2008

%                      Date of Decision: 04.09.2008

Sh.Anuj Saxena & Others                              .... Petitioners
             Through Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for petitioners
                       along with petitioner No.1 in person.

                                Versus

The State (NCT of Delhi) & Another                   .... Respondents
              Through Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the State.
                         Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for the
                         respondent No.2 along with respondent No.2
                         in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be               YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
     the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

Issue notice to the respondent. Mr.Vats accepts notice on behalf

of State. Mr.Anuj Aggarwal accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2,

Ms.Smriti Pandit who is also present in person.

Learned counsel for the parties contend that the disputes

between the petitioners and respondent No.2 have been resolved

amicably. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent

No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 04.06.2008 by

mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It

is also contended that under the settlement the respondent No.2 is

entitled for Rs.8 lakhs out of which Rs.5 lakhs was paid earlier and the

balance amount of Rs.3 lakh has been paid today in the Court by a

demand draft for Rs.2 lakhs bearing No.041715 dated 29th July, 2008

drawn on Union Bank of India, Prashant Vihar, Delhi and another

demand draft for Rs.1 lakh bearing No.144553 dated 30th July, 2008

drawn on ICICI Bank, Rohini, Delhi.

In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the parties contend

that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with the

proceedings pursuant to FIR No.192/2008 under Sections

498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Rohini,

against the petitioners. It is also contended that it shall be in the

interest of justice if the said FIR and all the proceedings emanating

therefrom against the petitioners are quashed.

Let the statement of respondent No.2 be recorded.

Statement of respondent No.2 has been recorded who has been

identified by her counsel. Considering the statement of respondent

No.2 it is apparent that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing

the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.192/2008 under Sections

498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Rohini,

against the petitioners. It shall also be in the interest of justice to

quash the said FIR and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, in the

facts and circumstances. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

Mr.Vats, has also no objection to quashing of FIR No.192/2008 under

Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station

Rohini and all the proceedings emanating therefrom against the

petitioners.

In the totality of facts and circumstances, FIR No.192/2008

under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police

Station Rohini and all the proceedings emanating therefrom against the

petitioners are quashed.

The petition is disposed of.

Dasti.

September 04, 2008                             ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'