Smt. Bhawana vs State & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1730 Del

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

                              Crl.M.C.758/2007

                                         Date of decision: 28th April, 2008.

          Smt. Bhawana                   ... Petitioner
                through: Mr. N.K. Jha and Ms. Babita, Adv.

                                    VERSUS

          State & Ors.                  ....Respondents

through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. for the State with complainant in person Respondent nos. 2-7 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by Smt. Bhawana complainant in FIR No.

313/2004 dated 19th August, 2004 registered by the police station Shahdara on

her complaint. It appears that the petitioner was married to Shri Uma Shankar

Yadav, respondent no.4. The respondent no. 4 is the son of Shri Chandrama Ram

Yadav, respondent no. 2 and Smt. Sonia, respondent no. 3 herein. Sonu and

Meena, sister of the respondent no. 4 respectively have been arrayed as

respondent nos. 5 and 7 respectively. Shri Chhotey Lal Yadav, respondent no. 6 is

the

brother in law of the respondent no. 4.

2. The present petition has been necessitated inasmuch as after the

registration of the criminal case, the parties arrived at an amicable resolution of

the disputes. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner started residing with her

husband and in laws since 2nd December, 2004. The parties also jointly submitted

the compromise between them in the proceedings in the Hindu Marriage Act,

1956 which were pending before the court at Gaziabad. From the wedlock

cohabitation of the petitioner with the respondent no. 4, the parties have been

blessed with a son on 25th August, 2005 who has been named Master Abhay

Yadav.

3. The parties have expressed complete harmony and a desire to cohabit

without having the sword of the criminal proceeding pending over them. They

have submitted that there are no disputes or issues pending between them. It

has been submitted that it would be in the interest of the community as well as in

public interest that if the criminal proceedings initiated on the complaint of the

petitioner which has been registered as FIR No. 313/2004 be quashed so that the

parties can cohabit without any acrimony.

4. The settlement between the parties appears to be bonafide and voluntary.

The petitioner has joined her husband respondent no. 4 and has even given birth

to a child from the wedlock. Looked at from any

angle, interest of justice merit that the criminal proceedings between the parties

be brought to a quietus which would be not only in their interest but also in the

interest of the public and community as well as the minor child of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 The parties have filed affidavits in support of their

settlement before this court and have appeared personally in court and have

submitted that they are living in harmony.

5. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is directed that the FIR No.

313/2004 dated 19th August, 2004 registered by the police station Shahdara under

Sections 498/406 IPC and all proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed.

Dasti to the parties.

(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE April 28, 2008 kr