Sh.Kanti Swaroop & Ors. v. The State of Delhi & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 406, 498A
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. 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 YES NO NO in the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. * Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are…
Judgment
Through: Mr.M. Rais Farooqui, Advocate along with petitioner No.1 in person. Versus The State of Delhi & Another ......... Respondents Through : Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for State. Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM :- * HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
Operative part
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 YES NO NO in the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. * Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present with counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner and parties state that the matter between the parties has been resolved amicably and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 20th October, 2007. . CRL.M.C.No.2350/2008 Under the settlement, respondent No.2 is entitled for a total sum of Rs.1.30 lakh which amount has already been paid to respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner state that in view of the settlement no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.166/2005 under Sections 406/498A/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, against petitioners. Let the statement of respondent No.2 be recorded, who is identified by the counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Rais Farooqui. 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 amicably. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 20th October, 2007. It is apparent that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.166/2005 under Sections 406/498A/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, 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, has also no objection to the quashing of the FIR. CRL.M.C.No.2350/2008 Therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances, FIR No.166/2005 under Sections 406/498A/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom against petitioners are quashed. The petition is disposed of. Dasti. August 05, 2008 ‘Dev’ ANIL KUMAR, J. CRL.M.C.No.2350/2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 406, 498A.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 05 Aug 2008. The bench was ANIL KUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.