Allowed

Varinder Kumar v. State & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Mar 2018W.P.(CRL)/784/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 IPC. The court found that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant had been settled amicably via mediation post-divorce. Consequently, the proceedings were deemed to serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 261/2012 and all proceedings arising therefrom were quashed, subject to all just exceptions.

Varinder Kumar Vs State & Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 784/2018 VARINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through : Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate along with petitioner present in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC. Mr.Rajat Sharma, Advocate, for R-2 along with complainant/R-2 present in person. ASI Dev Dutt, PS Chitranjan Park.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

¶8

O R D E R % 16.03.2018 CRL.M.A.No.4914/2018 (Exemption)

¶9

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

W.P.(CRL) 784/2018

¶12

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.261/2012 registered under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC at Police Station Chitranjan Park, Delhi. It is stated that the matter has been settled amicably with the complainant / respondent No.2 before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide settlement agreement dated 13.11.2017.

¶13

W.P.(CRL) 784/2018

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

Complainant / respondent No.2 is present with counsel and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. I have enquired from the complainant if she has settled the dispute with the petitioner amicably without any fear or pressure. She has informed that all the disputes between the parties have been resolved amicably with her free consent and she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question. Divorce by mutual consent has already been granted.

¶16

The petition is supported by affidavits of the parties. Settlement/Compromise deed dated 13.11.2017 signed by the parties before Mediation Centre, Saket Courts is on record. Since the dispute between the parties has been settled, no useful purpose will be served to continue with the proceedings. In the interest of justice and to enable the parties to settle in life after divorce, FIR No.261/2012 registered under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC at Police Station Chitranjan Park, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶17

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

S.P.GARG, J.

¶19

MARCH 16, 2018/ sa

¶20

Page 2 of 2

¶21

W.P.(CRL) 784/2018

Varinder Kumar v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varinder Kumar v. State & Ors.

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

Prayash Thakur Vs Enforcement Directorare

Kuldeep Singh Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Manish Kumar Sinha Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Hari Shankar Bharti Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Shahid Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Sunita Bansal Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Charanjeet Singh & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Charanjeet Singh & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Prayash Thakur Vs Enforcement Directorare

Mohd Iqbal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Mahesh Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Sushila & Ors. Vs State (the NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Mehmood Ali Vs State

Rajeev Awasthi & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.