Allowed

Gaurav Bansal & Ors. v. State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Oct 2018CRL.M.C./5344/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC after the respondent settled with the petitioner and obtained a divorce. The wife paid the entire settled amount, and the court held no purpose served by continuing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 1020/2014 and consequent proceedings quashed; miscellaneous applications disposed of as infructuous.

Gaurav Bansal & Ors. Vs State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~40

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 5344/2018 GAURAV BANSAL & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar and Mr. Gaurav Garg, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State with SI Devi Lal, P.S. Maurya Enclave. Mr. P. Kumar, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 16.10.2018 Notice. Learned APP accepts notice for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is present in Court along with her counsel, who accepts notice. She has been identified by SI Devi Lal of police station Maurya Enclave.

¶7

Respondent no.2 submits that she has settled the matter with petitioner no.1 of her own free will and without any undue force, pressure or coercion before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi on 30.03.2017. Her marriage with petitioner no.1 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Family Court, North West District, Rohini Court, New Delhi. Petitioner no.1 has paid `7.50 lacs to the respondent no.2 today in Court vide a demand draft, photocopy whereof has been placed on record. Respondent no.2 submits

¶8

that with this payment entire settled amount of `22.50 lacs stands paid and she has no objection in case FIR No. 1020/2014 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at police station Maurya Enclave is quashed against the petitioner no.1 and his relatives, that is, petitioner nos. 2 to 4.

¶9

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 in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶10

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous applications

¶11

are disposed of as infructuous.

¶12

Dasti.

¶13

A.K. PATHAK, J.

¶14

OCTOBER 16, 2018 ga

Gaurav Bansal & Ors. v. State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Bansal & Ors. v. State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & 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

Rohit Singh Vs State

Sanjay Maheshwari Vs State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Sanjeev Aneja Vs State

Shalu Vs NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Darshan Lal Vs Usha Anand

Virendre Sahu Vs State