Delhi High Court
Omkar And Ors vs State And Anr. on 21 July, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M.C. 1790/2010
Decided on 21.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
OMKAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. T.S. Verma, Advocate with petitioners
No.1 and 2 in person.
versus
STATE AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State
Respondent No.2/complainant, Smt. Sunita Verma in
person.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482
of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.190/2004, lodged by
the respondent No.2, wife of the petitioner No.1 and daughter-in-law of
petitioner No.2 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC with Police Station: Keshav
Puram.
2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of petitioner No.1
and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 30.06.2001 and there is no issue
from out of this wedlock. In the year 2004, FIR No.190/2004 was registered
by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners and the mother-in-law of the
respondent No.2, who has since expired. After carrying out the investigation,
a challan was filed by the police authorities in the court, which is now
pending before the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini
Courts, Delhi. In the meantime, the parties negotiated a settlement with
each other in terms of which, a mutual divorce was granted to the parties
vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2006 (Page-19). It is stated that in
terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner No.1
has paid a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs to the respondent No.2/complainant in full and
final settlement of all her claims against the petitioners.
3. The respondent No.2/complainant, who is present in Court,
confirms the aforesaid position and states that after the mutual divorce took
place between the parties, she has got re-married. The petitioner No.1 also
states that he has divorced respondent No.2 and got remarried and neither
of the parties has any claim left against each other. Learned APP states that
in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection
to the quashing of the FIR.
4. This Court has perused the petition and the documents placed on
the record and has also interacted with the parties, who are present in
Court. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties that they have
arrived at a negotiated settlement and have also obtained a mutual divorce
whereafter, they have gone their respective ways by getting re-married, no
useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIR.
FIR No.190/2004 and all the proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
5. The petition is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JULY 21, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
