The High Court quashed FIR No. 42/2009 and proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 due to an amicable settlement between parties.
Quashed FIR No. 42/2009 and proceedings pursuant thereto along with pending matters.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.
RespondentNo. 2, the PetitionerNo. 1 has to pay ^4 lakhs out of which ^3 laldis have already been paid to her and ^1 lakhs have been paid to her today. She further states that in view of the settlementbetweenthe parties, she does not want to pursue the abovementionedFIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
r
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuanceof the proceedings,rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
Consequently,FIR No. 42/2009 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at PS New Usmanpur,Delhi and proceedingspursuantthereto are hereby quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
The petition is disposed of Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
DECEMBER 01, lOll/'vn'
CRL.M.C.3775/2011
^ , Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 42/2009 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 should be quashed in view of settlement between parties.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Respondent No. 2
Petitioner No. 1
MUKTA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
