CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mukesh Kumar and Others vs State and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 23 September 2011 · Citation: (2011) 09 DEL CK 0507

HON’BLE JUDGES
Suresh Kait, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 34, 406, 498A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.C. No. 2779 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 366 words

Suresh Kait, J.—Issue notice.

2.

Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State.

3.

Mr. A K Tripathi, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

4.

Ld. counsel for the Petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 1039/2007 a case was registered u/s 406/498A/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioners on the complaint of Respondent No. 2 at PS Najafgarh, New Delhi.

5.

Ld. counsel for the Petitioners further submits that both the parties have amicably settled their disputes, therefore, do not want to pursue the case further.

6.

Respondent No. 2 namely, Mamta R/o RZC-134, Gali Bengali Painter, Roshan Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi is personally present in Court today with her counsel, who has identified her. W/ASI Kamlesh IO is present in Court, who has also identified Respondent No. 2 as Mamta.

7.

Respondent No. 2 submits that vide compromise deed dated 26.04.2008 all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR has been settled against the Petitioners. As per the settlement total amount of �.2,30,000/- has already been received by her. The marriage between the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 has been dissolved u/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act on 05.09.2008. She does not want to pursue the case further and she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

8.

Keeping the aforesaid decree of divorce and the settlement between the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 into view and in the interest of justice I quash FIR No. 1039/2007 registered u/s 406/498A/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioners on the complaint of Respondent No. 2 at PS Najafgarh, New Delhi and emanating proceedings thereto.

9.

Ld. APP for State submits that charge-sheet has already been filed and the charges are yet to be framed. Further submits that while quashing the FIR cost should be imposed on the Petitioners since the Government machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed.

10.

Though I find force in the submission of Ld. APP, however, keeping in view the financial position of the Petitioners I defer imposing cost on them.

11.

Crl.M.C.2779/2011 is allowed in the above terms.

12.

Dasti under signature of the Court Master.