CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2008) 03 DEL CK 0196

Harish Saxena [CDR.] and Others vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Another

Delhi High Court · Decided on 19 March 2008 · Citation: (2008) 2 DMC 637

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 903 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 394 words

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Cr.MA. 3413/2008

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

Crl. M.A. 3414/2008

The delay of ten days in re-filing the petition is condoned and the application is allowed.

Crl M.C. 903/2008

1.

Notice, which is accepted by learned Counsel for the respondents.

2.

A marriage was solemnized between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 on 23.1.1999. There is no child born out of the wedlock between the parties. In view of matrimonial disputes, the parties separated in December, 2003. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the petitioners which resulted in registration of FIR No. 1085 dated 21.12.2005 under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC against the petitioners. The challan is stated not to have been filed as yet.

3.

The parties have settled their disputes vide a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties on 15.9.2008 in terms whereof they agreed to get their marriage terminated by mutual consent and petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay to respondent No. 2 a sum of Rs. 6 lakh in full and final settlement of all her monetary claims including permanent alimony, Stridhan, past, present and future maintenance, etc. A decree for divorce by mutual consent has been granted by the Matrimonial Court on 22.1.2008. A sum of Rs. 4 lakh already stands paid to respondent No. 2 and the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakh is lying with the Matrimonial Court to be released to respondent No. 2 after quashing order is passed.

The respondent No. 2/wife is present in Court and is identified by her Counsel and, on being asked, confirms the aforesaid facts and states that she does not want to prosecute the complaint. The respondent No. 2/wife has also filed an affidavit in support of the petition.

In view of the judgments of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and in G.V. Rao v. LHV Prasad and Ors. : 2000CriLJ3487 , and the fact that the marriage between the parties stand dissolved, all monetary claims of respondent No. 2 stand satisfied and respondent No. 2 does not want to prosecute the complaint, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the criminal complaint.

4.

Thus, all proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 1085 dated 21.12.2005 under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC are quashed and the petition is allowed.

Dasti.