SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manpreet & Anr. vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 19 April, 2018

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment delivered on: 19.04.2018

+ CRL.M.C. 1498/2018
MANPREET ANR ….. Petitioners
versus

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ANR ….. Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Mishra and Mr. B.P. Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

19.04.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

CRL.M.C. 1498/2018 Crl.M.A.5444/2018 (stay)

1. Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.385/2017 under Sections
354/
380/498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, based on
a settlement. Subsequently,
Section 376 IPC has been added after
recording statement of the prosecutrix under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.

2. The allegation against the petitioner No.2, who is the sister of
the petitioner No.1, is of alleged demand of dowry. Insofar as the

CRL.M.C. 1498/2018 Page 1 of 3
petitioner No.1 is concerned, the allegations are not only of demand of
dowry but also of making physical relationship by use of force.

3. Respondent No.2 is present in Court in person and submits that
she has settled with the petitioners and she and the petitioner No.1
have got married and are residing together as husband and wife. She
submits that she does not wish to press her complaint.

4. Since the allegations against the petitioner No.1 are of having
allegedly committed the offence under
Section 376 IPC, in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in
Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab:
2012 (10) SCC 303, the present case is not a fit case for quashing of
the FIR based on a settlement, qua petitioner No. 1.

5. Accordingly, so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, keeping
in view of the said judgment of Gyan Singh (supra), I am not inclined
to exercise discretionary powers of quashing the FIR qua him.

6. Learned APP submits that allegations against petitioner No. 2
are only under
section 498A IPC and not under Section 354/380 or
376
IPC.

7. Insofar as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, since the only
allegation against the petitioner No.2 are under
section 498A IPC of
alleged demand of dowry and respondent No.2 has also settled with
her and has subsequently married her brother and is living with him, I
am of the view that it is a fit case for quashing the FIR qua the

CRL.M.C. 1498/2018 Page 2 of 3
petitioner No.2.

8. In view of the above, the subject FIR No.385/2017 and the
consequent proceedings emanating there from, qua petitioner No.2, are
quashed. The petition qua petitioner No. 1 is dismissed.

9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

10. Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 19, 2018
st

CRL.M.C. 1498/2018 Page 3 of 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation