SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjay & Ors. vs The State ( Nct) Of Delhi & Anr. on 24 July, 2018

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24.07.2018

+ CRL.M.C. 2714/2018
SANJAY ORS ….. Petitioners

versus

THE STATE ( NCT) OF DELHI ANR ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Ms. Shanu Raina with Mr. Devesh Kumar, Advs.

For the Respondent: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for the State with SI
Jasmer Singh, PS Jahangir Puri

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

24.07.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. 9638/2018(Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.A. 9639/2018
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 21 days in
refiling is condoned.

Application is allowed.

CRL.M.C. 2714/2018 CRL.M.A.9637/2018

CRL.M.C. 2714/2018 Page 1 of 3

1. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.787 of 2006 under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, Police Station Jahangir Puri, New
Delhi, based on a settlement.

2. Subject FIR emanates out of a matrimonial discord. Petitioner
No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. is the father-in-law of the
respondent No.2. Petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law of the
respondent No.2. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the brothers-in-law of
the respondent No.2. Petitioner No.6 is the sister-in-law of the
respondent No.2.

3. Petitioners and respondent No.2 who appears in person submit
that they have settled their disputes before the Family Courts, Rohini
and Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have started living together
amicably as husband and wife. Respondent No.2 further submits that
she has settled all her disputes with her husband and does not wish to
prosecute the complaint either against her husband or against her
father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law who
are petitioner Nos.2 to 6. She submits that in view of the fact that she
has settled with her husband and wants to restore the family ties, she
wants that the FIR be quashed.

4. In view of the fact that the disputes between the parties have
been settled and Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have started
living together, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an
exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute

CRL.M.C. 2714/2018 Page 2 of 3
between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the
ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be
expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings
emanating there from.

5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.787 of
2006 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC at Police Station
Jahangir Puri, New Delhi and the consequent proceedings therefrom
are, accordingly quashed.

6. Order Dasti under signature of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JULY 24, 2018
ns

CRL.M.C. 2714/2018 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