Rakesh Kumar & Anr v. State & Anr

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

%

Date of decision : 01.08.2008

Rakesh Kumar & Anr

….… Petitioners Through: Mr.Suresh Chand Sharma with Mr.Rajesh Kumar Patoha, Advocates along with petitioner No.1 in person.

Versus

State & Another

......... Respondents Through : Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for State.

Mr.Shakti Chand Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 along with respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM :- * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

¶1Whether reporters of Local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to the reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J. *

Petitioner No.1, husband, and respondent No.2, wife, are present with their counsel. Learned counsel for the parties state that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 2nd July, 2008 on the ground of mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The parties have already settled all their claims against each other and

in settlement of the claims of respondent No.2 an amount of Rs.2.30 lakhs has been paid to respondent No.2. It is contended that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.103/2002 under Section 498A of IPC registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, against petitioners.

Let the statement of respondent No.2 be recorded.

Statement of respondent No.2 has been recorded. The disputes between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, who were husband and wife, has been resolved. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 2nd July, 2008 on the ground of mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is apparent that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.103/2002 under Section 498A of IPC registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi against petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances, it shall also be in the interest of justice to quash the said FIR and all the proceeding emanating therefrom. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Vats, also has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

Therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances, FIR No.103/2002 under Section 498A of IPC registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom against petitioners are quashed.

The petition is disposed of.

Dasti.

August 1st , 2008

ANIL KUMAR, J. 'k'