Chand Ram & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3292 Del

               * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of Reserve: 6th July, 2010
                                              Date of Order: July 15, 2010

Crl. M.C. No. 370/2010
%
                                                                   15.07.2010

CHAND RAM & ORS.                                             ... Petitioner
                          Through: Nemo.

              Versus

STATE & ANR                                             ... Respondents
                          Through: Mr. Vivek Choudhary &
                          Mr. Satish, Advocates for R-2


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

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

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

1. Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 33 of 2003,

P.S. Narela, under section 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 of IPC.

2. After filing of this FIR, the parties were, with the intervention of

court, referred to Lok Adalat. The wife in the case is a Constable in Delhi

Police and the husband is an army man. The parties had four children. As

per compromise, both husband and wife agreed to obtain divorce by

mutual consent, and to give up all their claims against each other and to

maintain and keep custody of two children each. It was also agreed that

they shall not claim any maintenance for the children from each other and

all cases and applications made by the parties against each other shall

stand withdrawn / cancelled. Statements of both the parties were

recorded to this effect on 5th March, 2005. Wife in her statement

specifically stated that henceforth she shall not pursue any of the

complaints. Thereafter the parties appeared before the ADJ, Sonepat and

again verified that their statements were recorded before Lok Adalat of

Shri A.K. Bimla, ADJ and they affirmed their statements. It was also stated

by the parties that they should be granted decree of divorce and all cases

against them should be treated as withdrawn/cancelled. The present

petition has been filed after above proceedings. The wife appeared in this

court. She did not deny making of statement and obtaining of divorce by

mutual consent and the decision of the parties to maintain two children

each. She, however, opposed the quashing of FIR on the ground that she

was to receive some of her articles etc. & some more money.

I consider that opposition made by the wife was baseless. In 2005,

when the divorce for mutual consent was granted, the parties had settled

all their disputes and this FIR was agreed to be cancelled/quashed. I,

therefore, allow the present petition. FIR No. 33/2003, P.S. Narela is

hereby quashed.

July 15, 2010                       SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm