The Court quashed FIRs No.349/2013 and No.738/2014 and related proceedings involving the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, as the parties had amicably settled their matrimonial differences before a mediation centre and were divorced by mutual consent.
FIR No.349/2013, FIR No.738/2014 and proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.
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:AM UL YA
No.349/2013 undor Soction 498A IPC and Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short IT Act) and FIR No.738/2014 under Section 376-B IPC both registered at PS Lajpat Nagar, Delhi on the complaint of respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that, the parties have settled the matter.
T''
W.P.(CRL) 3269/2018 & conn.matter
page 2 of 3
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
DECEMBER 10, 2018
mamta
W.P.(CRL) 3269/2018 & conn.matter
^
y page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the aforementioned FIRs under Sections 498A IPC, Section 66-A IT Act, and Section 376-B IPC and the proceedings pursuant thereto should be quashed given the parties' settlement.
Petitioner
Respondent No.2
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
