Allowed

Ajay Soni & Ors. v. the State & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Jul 2018CRL.M.C./3215/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act after the petitioner paid a settlement amount and obtained a divorce decree by mutual consent, finding no benefit in continuing criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR under Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with consequent proceedings, were quashed.

Ajay Soni & Ors. Vs the State & Anr. — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 3215/2018

¶4

AJAY SONI & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Ankit Dixit & Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP SI Ajay Kumar PS Bawana. Ms. Neetu Bagri, Adv. for R-2.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 02.07.2018

¶8

Crl. M.A.11287/2018 (exemption)

¶9

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

Application is disposed of.

¶11

Crl.M.C. No.3215/2018

¶12

Notice. Learned APP accepts notice for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 Ms. Sonia is also present in Court and accepts notice. She has been identified by SI Ajay Kumar of police station Bawana.

¶13

Respondent no. 2 submits that she has settled the matter with the petitioner no. 1 of her own free will and without any undue force, pressure or coercion vide MOU dated 22^nd November, 2017. Her marriage with the petitioner no.1 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 05^th April, 2018 passed by the Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi.

¶14

Petitioner no. 1 has paid 50,000/- to the respondent no. 2 today in Court vide a demand draft, photocopy whereof has been placed on record. Respondent no. 2 says that entire settled amount of 2,50,000/- stands paid with this payment and she has no objection in case FIR No.388/2016 under Sections 498A/406/323/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 registered at police station Bawana is quashed against the petitioner no. 1 and his relatives, that is, petitioner nos. 2 to 5.

¶15

Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 voluntarily, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the criminal proceedings pending as parties have already decided to part ways. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶16

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous. Dasti .

¶17

A.K. PATHAK, J

¶18

JULY 02, 2018 ab

Ajay Soni & Ors. v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Soni & Ors. v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenu Rani Vs North Delh Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Shankar Prasad Arya Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Rahul Sharma Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Tabis Abdul Razaq Vs State & Ors.

Lalit Mohan Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ajay & Ors. Vs Sangeeta