Rajeev Garg & Ors v. State & Ors

ORDER

25.11.2011 This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 261/2007 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Shakarpur on the complaint of the respondent No.2 on the ground of parties having amicably settled the dispute. Petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 are identified by their respective counsels. Respondent No. 2/complainant Shikha Garg was married to petitioner No. 1 Rajeev Garg. Out of the wedlock, one son child Sarthak was bom, who is in custody and care of his mother. Now, the parties have got decree of divorce by ly Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. mutual consentin terms of the settlementarrivedat in mediationon 2?"^ November, 2010 at Karkardooma District Courts. Both the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 state that they have compromisedthe matter. In terms of the compromisearrived at betweenthe parties, a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000/-was to be paid to the respondent No. 2 by the petitioners. Out of the said amount, Rs. 1,80,000/- has already been paid to the respondent No. 2 and balance Rs. 1 lakh is paid today by way of a pay order. Respondent No. 2 states that she has compromised the matter with the petitionersof her own free will and volitionand withoutany pressure or coercionand now, she is left with no grievance against the petitioners and she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. In view of the foregoing and the fact that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the FIR. Accordingly, FIR No. 261/2007 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Shakarpur and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Needless to say that this settlement between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 is without prejudice to the rights of child son Sarthak that may be available to him as per law. Bail bonds of the petitioners are cancelled and their sureties are discharged. The petition stands disposed of. M.L. MEHTA,J NOVEMBER 25, 2011 akb >

$-11 * IN THE fflGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % CRL.M.C. 3045/2011 RAJEEV GARG & ORS Through: versus Petitioner Petitioners in person with Mr. Roop Ram Sarwal, Advocate. STATE «& ORS Respondent Through: Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP. Mr. Surendra Bharti, Advocate for R2 with R2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA