Court quashed FIR challening under Dowry Prohibition Act based on settlement reached with petitioner and victims; incidental applications disposed as infructuous.
FIR quashed against petitioner and relatives; incidental applications treated as infructuous.
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.
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHISH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. B.K. Rawat, Adv.
Versus
STATE AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP with SI Shri Gopal, P.S. Shakarpur for the State Respondent no. 2 in person
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R D E R % 15.01.2018
Respondent no. 2 Ms. Indu is present in Court and has been identified by SI Shri Gopal of Police Station Shakarpur. Respondent no. 2 admits having settled the matter with petitioner no. 1 of her own free will, voluntarily and without any undue force, pressure or coercion, vide a Settlement Deed dated 31st December, 2017. Respondent no. 2 says that articles, as mentioned in the Settlement Deed, have already been received by her. Respondent no. 2 further says that she has no objection in case FIR is
quashed against the petitioner no. 1 and his relatives, that is, petitioner nos. 2 to 6. Affidavit of respondent no. 2 is also on record as Annexure P.
Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no. 2, in the interest of justice, FIR No.3032/2015 under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station Shakarpur, which is at the investigation stage, is quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous applications are disposed of as infructuous. Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 15, 2018 r.bararia
Ashish Kumar & Ors
State and Anr
A.K. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
