Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Himmat Ram and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Himmat Ram and ors. vs State and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 23, 1991
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/693807

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 623 of 1991
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Section 498A/406, IPC, 1860 - Case pending trial--Parties to the marriage entered into compromise--marriage between them dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent--Wife received substantial amount in order to settle her a claims--No dispute remained between the parties--Proceedings pending under Section 498...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Himmat Ram and ors.

Advocate R.P. Kathuria,; A.K. Manchanda and; A.K. Aggarwal, Advs

Respondent

State and ors.

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498A
Reported In
I(1992)DMC204; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)249

Excerpt

section 498a/406, ipc, 1860 - case pending trial--parties to the marriage entered into compromise--marriage between them dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent--wife received substantial amount in order to settle her a claims--no dispute remained between the parties--proceedings pending under section 498a/406 ipc, quashed.; that parties have entered into compromise since the petitioner no. 3 and respondent no. 2 were not in a position to pull on well. the marriage between them has since been dissolved by a mutual consent decree on 21.9.91 in a hindu marriage application no, 440/91, by smt. sharda aggarwal addl. district judge. in order to settle all the claims, respondent no. 2 has been paid a sum of rs. 45,000/-. no dispute now remains between the parties and statements of petitioner nos. 1 & 3 and respondent no. 2 have in this regard been recorded. - - they, however, could not pull on well together and on 6th march, 1989, smt. 2 were not in a position to pull on well. 2 has already been compensated for all her claims, by the petitioners, (5) in these circumstances, i am clearly of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings against the petitioners, under sections 498-a and 406; ipc, should not continue......by the petitioners praying for quashing of proceedings in fir no. 57/89, in police station, kingsway camp, under sections 498-a and 406, ipc, pending in the court of shri n. k. kaushik, metropolitan magistrate, delhi.(2) briefly stated that the facts leading to the filing of this petition that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 are the parents of petitioner no. 3 rajesh kumar, petitioner no. 3 was married to smt. shashi, respondent no. 2 on 19.6.87 and thereafter, they started living together as husband and wife. they, however, could not pull on well together and on 6th march, 1989, smt. shashi, respondent no. 2 got fir no. 57/89 recorded against the petitioners, under section 498-a and 406, ipc, in police station kingsway camp, delhi. challan was filed in court and is now pending in the court of shri n. r. kaushik, metropolitan magistrate, delhi fixed for 13th december, 1991.(3) parties have entered into compromise since the petitioner no. 3 and respondent no. 2 were not in a position to pull on well. the marriage between them has since been dissolved by a mutual consent decree on 21.9.91 in a hindu marriage application no. 440/91, by smt. sharda aggarwal, addl. district judge. in order to settle all the claims, respondent no. 2 has been paid a sum of rs. 45,000/' no dispute now remains between the parties and statements of petitioner nos. 1 & 3 and respondent no. 2 have in this regard been recorded. (4) from the facts, it is clear that on account of their inability to live together the marriage between the petitioner no. 3 and respondent no. 2 has already been dissolved. they have settled all their disputes and respondent no. 2 has already been compensated for all her claims, by the petitioners, (5) in these circumstances, i am clearly of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings against the petitioners, under sections 498-a and 406; ipc, should not continue. (6) as a result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings against the.....

Full Judgment

V.B. Bansal, J.

(1) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of proceedings in Fir No. 57/89, in Police Station, Kingsway Camp, under Sections 498-A and 406, Ipc, pending in the court of Shri N. K. Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.

(2) Briefly stated that the facts leading to the filing of this petition that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the parents of petitioner No. 3 Rajesh Kumar, petitioner No. 3 was married to Smt. Shashi, respondent No. 2 on 19.6.87 and thereafter, they started living together as husband and wife. They, however, could not pull on well together and on 6th March, 1989, Smt. Shashi, respondent No. 2 got Fir No. 57/89 recorded against the petitioners, under Section 498-A and 406, Ipc, in Police Station Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Challan was filed in Court and is now pending in the Court of Shri N. R. Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi fixed for 13th December, 1991.

(3) Parties have entered into compromise since the petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2 were not in a position to pull on well. The marriage between them has since been dissolved by a mutual consent decree on 21.9.91 in a Hindu Marriage Application No. 440/91, by Smt. Sharda Aggarwal, Addl. District Judge. In order to settle all the claims, respondent No. 2 has been paid a sum of Rs. 45,000/' No dispute now remains between the parties and statements of petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 and respondent No. 2 have in this regard been recorded.

(4) From the facts, it is clear that on account of their inability to live together the marriage between the petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2 has already been dissolved. They have settled all their disputes and respondent No. 2 has already been compensated for all her claims, by the petitioners,

(5) In these circumstances, I am clearly of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings against the petitioners, under Sections 498-A and 406; Ipc, should not continue.

(6) As a result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners, pending in the Court of Shri N. K.- Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC., in Fir No. 57/89 in Police Station Kingsway Camp, Delhi, stands quashed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial