Atul Sejwal & Ors v. State & Anr

ANIL KUMAR, J. *

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present along with their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 contend that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have resolved all their disputes and they are living together since 4th July, 2008. Since all the disputes have been resolved, learned counsel for the parties contend that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.432/2008 under Sections 498A/328/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, against the petitioners. It is also contended that continuation of proceedings shall rather be detrimental for the future peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. Crl.M.C. No.2634/2008

Let the statement of respondent No.2, Smt.Seema Sejwal, be recorded who is identified by her counsel.

Statement of respondent No.2 has been recorded. Respondent No.2 states that she has started living with petitioner No.1. In order to have future peace and a normal matrimonial life, the respondent No.2 does not wish to continue with the proceeding pursuant to the above-said FIR against the petitioners. It is apparent that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the proceedings pursuant to said FIR, rather continuing of these proceedings may be detrimental to the married life of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. It shall also be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR No.432/2008 under Sections 498A/328/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Vats, also has no objection to quashing of the FIR against petitioners.

In the totality of facts and circumstances, the FIR No.432/2008 under Sections 498A/328/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed.

The petition is disposed of. Dasti.

August 13, 2008

ANIL KUMAR, J. 'Dev'

Crl.M.C. No.2634/2008 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.2634/2008 % Date of Decision: 13.08.2008 Atul Sejwal & Others …. Petitioners Through Mr.Puneet Ahluwalia, Advocate Versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & Another …. Respondents Through Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State. Mr.Rajender Vijay, Advocate for respondent No.2 along with respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?