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.

Amarjit Singh Vs. State

Amarjit Singh vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 13, 1993
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/700575

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
Cr. M. (M) 2608 of 1992 and Cr. M. 2315 of 1992
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amarjit Singh

Advocate Jagdish Singh, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate A.K. Singh, Adv. for the Respondent No. 1

Legal References

Reported In
II(1993)DMC567

Excerpt

- sat pal, j.1. the case has been called out second time after a pass over but none is present on behalf of respondent no, 2. even on 30th april, 1993 none appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite service and the case was adjourned to 11th may, 1993. on 11th may, 1993 again none appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 and the case was again adjourned for today.2. learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of respondent no. 2 recorded on 11-1-1989 before ms. sharda aggarwal, additional district judge, delhi and it has been stated therein that the petitioner and respondent no. 2 have agreed that they would withdraw pending litigation against each other. he has also drawn my attention to an affidavit duly signed and sworn by respondent no. 2 on 31-5-1988, which is at page 26 of the paper book and in this affidavit it has been stated that a compromise has been struck between the parties. learned counsel has further submitted that pursuant to the agreement between the parties a decree of dissolution of marriage has already been passed on 11th january, 1988 by ms. sharda aggarwal, additional district judge, delhi, in hma case no. 611/88. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the view that no purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings pending in the court of ms. rekha rani, metropolitan magistrate, delhi, pursuant to fir no. 614/87, under sections 498-a/406 ipc registered at police station tilak nagar, delhi.3. accordingly, the aforesaid proceedings are quashed. with this order the petition stands disposed of. a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned.

Full Judgment

Sat Pal, J.

1. The case has been called out second time after a pass over but none is present on behalf of respondent No, 2. Even on 30th April, 1993 none appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 despite service and the case was adjourned to 11th May, 1993. On 11th May, 1993 again none appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 and the case was again adjourned for today.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of respondent No. 2 recorded on 11-1-1989 before Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi and it has been stated therein that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have agreed that they would withdraw pending litigation against each other. He has also drawn my attention to an affidavit duly signed and sworn by respondent No. 2 on 31-5-1988, which is at page 26 of the paper book and in this affidavit it has been stated that a compromise has been struck between the parties. Learned Counsel has further submitted that pursuant to the agreement between the parties a decree of dissolution of marriage has already been passed on 11th January, 1988 by Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi, in HMA case No. 611/88. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings pending in the Court of Ms. Rekha Rani, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, pursuant to FIR No. 614/87, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi.

3. Accordingly, the aforesaid proceedings are quashed. With this order the petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial