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.

Gulshan Raheja Vs. State and Another

Gulshan Raheja vs State and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 21, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/948108

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
CRL.M.C. 650 of 2012
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gulshan Raheja

Respondent

State and Another

Excerpt

suresh kait, j.(oral) crl.m.a.no.2225/2012(exemption)exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. criminal m.a. stands disposed of. crl.m.c. 650/20121. vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of fir no.44 dated 06.02.2004 whereby case under section 498a/406/34 indian penal code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of the respondent no. 2 at ps-anand vihar.2. it is further submitted that vide settlement dated 29.09.2011, respondent no. 2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid fir against the petitioners, therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the case further.3. respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court and in support of her identity she has produced her i-card bearing no. tle1706217 issued by election commission of india . (original seen and returned to the respondent no.2).4. respondent no. 2 has stated that vide settlement dated 29.09.2011 all the issues qua the aforesaid fir has been settled with the petitioners.5. consequent to the said settlement, she has been staying with petitioner no. 1 / husband.6. it is further submitted that they are living happily as husband and wife and there is no complaint against the petitioners. therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the case further and if the fir mentioned above is quashed, she has no objection.7. ld. app on the other hand fairly concedes that since respondent no. 2 has started living with petitioner no.1, therefore she has no objection if the fir referred above is quashed with emanating proceedings thereto.8. keeping the settlement mentioned above and the statement of the respondent no. 2 in to view as she is living with her husband happily and has no complaint against him, therefore, in the interest of justice, fir no. 44/2004 registered at ps-anand vihar is quashed with emanating proceedings thereto.9. accordingly, crl. m.c. 650/2012 is allowed.10. dasti.

Full Judgment

SURESH KAIT, J.

(Oral)

Crl.M.A.No.2225/2012(exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 650/2012

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR no.44 dated 06.02.2004 whereby case under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of the respondent no. 2 at PS-Anand Vihar.

2. It is further submitted that vide settlement dated 29.09.2011, respondent no. 2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners, therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the case further.

3. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court and in support of her identity she has produced her I-Card bearing no. TLE1706217 issued by Election Commission of India . (Original seen and returned to the respondent no.2).

4. Respondent no. 2 has stated that vide settlement dated 29.09.2011 all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR has been settled with the petitioners.

5. Consequent to the said settlement, she has been staying with petitioner no. 1 / husband.

6. It is further submitted that they are living happily as husband and wife and there is no complaint against the petitioners. Therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the case further and if the FIR mentioned above is quashed, she has no objection.

7. Ld. APP on the other hand fairly concedes that since respondent no. 2 has started living with petitioner no.1, therefore she has no objection if the FIR referred above is quashed with emanating proceedings thereto.

8. Keeping the settlement mentioned above and the statement of the respondent no. 2 in to view as she is living with her husband happily and has no complaint against him, therefore, in the interest of justice, FIR no. 44/2004 registered at PS-Anand Vihar is quashed with emanating proceedings thereto.

9. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 650/2012 is allowed.

10. Dasti.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial