Subhash Chander Chopra Vs. State and anr.

Subhash Chander Chopra vs State and anr.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Delhi Decided Jan 13, 1992

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/700253

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/700253
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: V.B. Bansal, J.
Decided On: Jan 13, 1992
Case Number: Crl. Misc. (M) No. 2304 of 1991
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- - During the pendency of the proceedings efforts made for reconciliation but failed and ultimately both the parties agreed for amicable settlement. It has been clearly stated by Sunita that after obtaining divorce from the petitioner she has marred Ramesh Chand Sachdeva with whom she is residing happily. 4. I ha...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subhash Chander Chopra

Advocate Surender Singh, Adv

Respondent

State and anr.

Advocate K.P. Sud, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482
Cases Referred: State v. Subhash Chander Chopra
Reported In: I(1992)DMC487

Excerpt

- - during the pendency of the proceedings efforts made for reconciliation but failed and ultimately both the parties agreed for amicable settlement. it has been clearly stated by sunita that after obtaining divorce from the petitioner she has marred ramesh chand sachdeva with whom she is residing happily. 4. i have considered the aforesaid fact and am clearly of the view that after the complainant having settled in her life the case being of 1984 it would not be in the interest of justice to continue with the said case.v.b. bansal, j.1. by way of this petition under section 482 cr.p.c. subhash chander chopra petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings in case state v. subhash chander chopra. fir no, 235/84, police station tilak nagar under section 498-a i.p.c.2. briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petitions are that the petitioner was married to smt. sunita respondent no. 2 on 30th april, 1983. however, on account of differences and disharmony the petitioner filed a divorce petition against respondent no. 2. she lodged fir 235/84 on 30th june, 1984 under section 498a ipc. during the pendency of the proceedings efforts made for reconciliation but failed and ultimately both the parties agreed for amicable settlement. accordingly a decree for divorce by mutual consent was passed on 14th december, 1988 when cash was also paid in lump sum to sunita towards full and final settlement of her disputes.3. statements of the petitioner as also respondent no. 2 have been recorded today. it has been clearly stated by sunita that after obtaining divorce from the petitioner she has marred ramesh chand sachdeva with whom she is residing happily. she has also started that she has settled all her disputes and claims with the petitioner and that she did not want to proceed further with her complaint.4. i have considered the aforesaid fact and am clearly of the view that after the complainant having settled in her life the case being of 1984 it would not be in the interest of justice to continue with the said case. in these circumstances, the proceedings have to be quashed.5. as a result the proceeding in case state v. subhash chander chopra pending in the court of ms. rekha rani, mm, delhi are quashed.

Full Judgment

V.B. Bansal, J.

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Subhash Chander Chopra petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings in case State v. Subhash Chander Chopra. FIR No, 235/84, Police Station Tilak Nagar under Section 498-A I.P.C.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petitions are that the petitioner was married to Smt. Sunita respondent No. 2 on 30th April, 1983. However, on account of differences and disharmony the petitioner filed a divorce petition against respondent No. 2. She lodged FIR 235/84 on 30th June, 1984 under Section 498A IPC. During the pendency of the proceedings efforts made for reconciliation but failed and ultimately both the parties agreed for amicable settlement. Accordingly a decree for divorce by mutual consent was passed on 14th December, 1988 when cash was also paid in lump sum to Sunita towards full and final settlement of her disputes.

3. Statements of the petitioner as also respondent No. 2 have been recorded today. It has been clearly stated by Sunita that after obtaining divorce from the petitioner she has marred Ramesh Chand Sachdeva with whom she is residing happily. She has also started that she has settled all her disputes and claims with the petitioner and that she did not want to proceed further with her complaint.

4. I have considered the aforesaid fact and am clearly of the view that after the complainant having settled in her life the case being of 1984 it would not be in the interest of justice to continue with the said case. In these circumstances, the proceedings have to be quashed.

5. As a result the proceeding in case State v. Subhash Chander Chopra pending in the Court of Ms. Rekha Rani, MM, Delhi are quashed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1992 Same Parties Subhash Chander Chopra vs State and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge V.B. Bansal, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482

Criminal