Tag Archives: Marriage is a gamble

Husband’s sister arrested, tied in ropes & taken by train ! aftermath of a dowry case !!

Screenshot - 22_06_2016 , 12_47_53.png

Screenshot - 22_06_2016 , 11_00_45_ver001

In harrowing incident a sister in law (husband’s sister) was arrested based on a dowry complaint, tried in ropes and taken by train

The entire station witnessed this gruesome incident which has come to light thanks to social media

#Marriage_is_Gamble #women_against_women #fakeDV #inhuman_Dowry_cases

Advertisements

marriage barily a month old and already girl and family threatening arrests !!

Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj

Marriage barely a month old. On verge of breaking down because of a demand by the girl which is difficult to be fulfilled right now due to circumstances. Girl gone back home with all her stuff and jewellery ( that gifted by groom as well) and parents saying to groom family – Agree to what we are saying else get ready for a Dowry case. We will put all of you behind bars including your younger son who has recently joined a job.

The man who called me kept saying only one thing – ma’am we did not ask for dowry. We did not take or demand anything. We spent double the amount they spent. Girl got everything given to her changed because she did not like it. Ring, clothes everything. During the wedding ceremony they took 6000 while entering the venue and 11000 for Juta Chupai. Boy side gas given much much more than what the girl side gave and now they are crying Dowry. Also – while they are threatening to file a case they are at the same time saying fulfil the condition and take her with you. Now if we had beaten the girl and demanded dowry, would someone send their daughter to that home?

How long before people understand it’s not about Dowry ?????

 

two times in life when ALL Indian women are supposedly obedient, courteous, sincere, and respecting

There are two times in life when ALL Indian women are supposedly obedient, courteous, sincere, and respecting their husbands. The first is on Matrimonial adverts. The second is in their written statements / pleadings before courts when they claim they respect their husbands and were most sincere !

what happens REALLY, what happens in between is known to all !!

Why LIFETIME alimony in india ??

In most parts of the civilised world alimony is time bound. In those truly equal countries It does NOT OPEN for women to claim alimony by sitting idle at home for ever and ever. They have to get out and work, they have to get out and learn things themselves . However lifetime alimony is the norm in India !! YES I repeat it is the NORM. Once married, the wife need NOT seek employment or education, she can sit back and expect the husband to provide everything for her

Many people fighting usurious alimony and maintenance cases in India have been quite un successful. The biggest problem in India is that the “system” and commission agents benefit if and only if men pay maintenance and / or alimony.... The “system” and middle men do not benefit if Indian women are made really independent, if Indian women are made really equal and capable of earning for themselves ….

So the loot in the name of LIFETIME alimony and lifetime maintenance goes on in spite of thousands of suicides by married man …. Approx 80000 every year

PS :  Since we face these questions day in and day our, we have blogged many cases where alimony is denied. Here is a link to the same  : 30 cases of maintenance denied or lowered

#alimony #lifetimeAlimony #Maintenance #MaleSuicides #thoudandsDead #MarriageIsGamble

40lakhs for defamation quash. Wid all ransom can send rockets 2 moon& really develop India! Alas!

The Husband seems to have fought back well and filed a lot of counter cases. As far as I recall this husband had gone up to HC to get a DP 3 complaint registered on the wife…. However he has paid up probably due to other pressures best know to him. We respect all those who take efforts to fight against such false cases

Key excerpts :

“….As per the settlement, petitioners agreed to pay an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as full and final settlement. Out of which Rs.35,00,000/- has been already been paid and Rs.5,00,000/- is to be paid today in the Court….”

“…6. It is pertinent to mention here that case FIR No. 232/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS- Roop Nagar against the petitioners has already been quashed in Crl. M.C. 4091/2015….”

“….10. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties, statement of respondent no.2, ld. APP for the State and the settled legal position FIR No.126/2013 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 507 IPC read with Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioners subject to clearance of the cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-…”

Also refer earlier / related case at : http://bit.ly/1MeS9mF

***********************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 10th December, 2015

CRL.M.C. 4092/2015

SAMEER SAXENA & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Rohit K. Nagpal and Ms. Anamika Tomar, Advs.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ….. Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Harendra Singh, PS-Roop Nagar.
Mr. Rajan Chowdhury, Adv. for R2.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No.126/2013 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 507 IPC read with Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case and case FIR No. 232/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at the same police station was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Ms. Pooja Saxena against petitioners. And case FIR Nos. 109/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 379/380/466/467/471/120-B/34 IPC and 13/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/474/477/120-B IPC were registered against respondent no. 2 / complainant at PS-Subzi Mandi on the complaint of the petitioner no.1. Thereafter, both the parties have settled their disputes vide settlement dated 27.01.2015 and consequent thereto, marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 31.08.2015. As per the settlement, petitioners agreed to pay an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as full and final settlement. Out of which Rs.35,00,000/- has been already been paid and Rs.5,00,000/- is to be paid today in the Court. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. Ld. Counsel further submits that FIRs mentioned above registered against the complainant / respondent no. 2 have already been quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court today itself. Thus, since the parties have inter se settled their disputes, respondent no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case further against the petitioners.

4. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court alongwith her counsel named above. For her identification she has produced Voter Identity Card being no. NCR1488527 issued by Election Commission of India. Original seen and returned. Ld. Counsel on instructions does not dispute whatever stated by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that all the cases mentioned above have been settled inter se between the parties and consequent thereto marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 31.08.2015. He further submits that as per the settlement, an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- has already been paid and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is to be paid today in the Court. However, since the DDs of the said amount have become staled, same have been returned to the petitioner no.1, who is personally present in the Court. The said petitioner has undertaken to hand over a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 during the course of the day. Ld. Counsel submits that since the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner is agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- today itself by way of cheque, respondent no. 2 has no objection, if the present petition is allowed subject to realization of the cheque.

5. On the other hand, ld. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation, police has filed the chargesheet. However, the charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that the present matter is a matrimonial one and since the respondent No.2 has settled all the disputes with the petitioners and does not wish to pursue the case further against them, no purpose would be served if the petitioners are directed to face trial. Therefore, the State has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that case FIR No. 232/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS- Roop Nagar against the petitioners has already been quashed in Crl. M.C. 4091/2015.

7. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

“58. ….However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is
basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled
all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that
such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may
within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on
the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the
offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated.”

8. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in
giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting
the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482
of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this
power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding
factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,
for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute
like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed
merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as
to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally
treated as crime against the society and not against the individual
alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is
there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under
Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court
to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the
victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this
prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there
is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction
are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter
case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the
parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that
the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482
of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those
cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the
alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still
on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or
the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima
facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On
the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or
after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of
argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court
would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to
come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC
is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction
is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the
parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is
already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

9. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate the aforesaid settlement dated 27.01.2015 and undertake to remain bound by the same.

10. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties, statement of respondent no.2, ld. APP for the State and the settled legal position FIR No.126/2013 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 507 IPC read with Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioners subject to clearance of the cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

11. Needless to state that if the said cheque is not clear, respondent no. 2 will be at liberty to approach the Court.

12. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE)

DECEMBER 10, 2015

jg
***************** related 498a quash *****************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 10th December, 2015

CRL.M.C. 4091/2015

SAMEER SAXENA & ORS.                      ….. Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Rohit K. Nagpal and Ms. Anamika Tomar, Advs.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR                   ….. Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Harendra Singh, PS-Roop Nagar.
Mr. Rajan Chowdhury, Adv. for R2.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No.232/2009 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case and case FIR No. 126/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 507 IPC & Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 at the same police station was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Ms. Pooja Saxena against petitioners. And case FIR Nos. 109/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 379/380/466/467/471/120-B/34 IPC and 13/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/474/477/120-B IPC were registered against respondent no. 2 / complainant at PS-Subzi Mandi on the complaint of the petitioner no.1. Thereafter, both the parties have settled their disputes vide settlement dated 27.01.2015 and consequent thereto, marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 31.08.2015. As per the settlement, petitioners agreed to pay an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as full and final settlement. Out of which Rs.35,00,000/- has been already been paid and Rs.5,00,000/- is to be paid today in the Court.

3. Ld. Counsel further submits that FIRs mentioned above registered against the complainant / respondent no. 2 have already been quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court today itself. Thus, since the parties have inter se settled their disputes, respondent no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case further against the petitioners.

4. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court alongwith her counsel named above. For her identification she has produced Voter Identity Card being no. NCR1488527 issued by Election Commission of India. Original seen and returned. Ld. Counsel on instructions does not dispute whatever stated by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that all the cases mentioned above have been settled inter se between the parties and consequent thereto marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 31.08.2015. He further submits that as per the settlement, an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- has already been paid and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is to be paid today in the Court. However, since the DDs of the said amount have become staled, same have been returned to the petitioner no.1, who is personally present in the Court. The said petitioner has undertaken to hand over a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 during the course of the day. Ld. Counsel submits that since the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner is agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- today itself by way of cheque, respondent no. 2 has no objection, if the present petition is allowed subject to realization of the cheque.

5. On the other hand, ld. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation, police has filed the chargesheet. However, the charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that the present matter is a matrimonial one and since the respondent No.2 has settled all the disputes with the petitioners and does not wish to pursue the case further against them, no purpose would be served if the petitioners are directed to face trial. Therefore, the State has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that case FIR No. 126/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 507 IPC & Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at PS-Roop Nagar against the petitioners has already been quashed in Crl. M.C. 4092/2015.

7. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

“58. ….However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is
basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled
all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that
such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may
within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on
the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the
offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated.”

8. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in
giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting
the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482
of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this
power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding
factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,
for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute
like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed
merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as
to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally
treated as crime against the society and not against the individual
alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is
there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under
Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court
to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the
victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this
prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there
is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction
are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter
case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the
parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that
the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482
of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those
cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the
alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still
on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or
the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima
facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On
the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or
after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of
argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court
would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to
come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC
is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction
is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the
parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is
already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

9. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, wherein the Supreme Court in respect of the matrimonial disputes has specifically held as follows:-

“15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine
settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are
on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable,
if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied
that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any
pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice,
Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power
of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent
times. They institution of marriage occupies an important place and
it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every
effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to
enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the
parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of
law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the
courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary
jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482
should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the
Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing
the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or
that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be
quashed….”

10. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate the aforesaid settlement dated 27.01.2015 and undertake to remain bound by the same.

11. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution because of which, its chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished. Therefore, in view of the law discussed above, in the facts and circumstances as noted above, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

12. Consequently, FIR No.232/2009 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioners subject to clearance of the cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-.

13. Needless to state that if the said cheque is not clear, respondent no. 2 will be at liberty to approach the Court.

14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE)

DECEMBER 10, 2015

jg

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************