Rajesh Kumar @ Raju and Others Vs. State and Another

Rajesh Kumar @ Raju and Others vs State and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 24, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/948538

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/948538
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Suresh Kait
Decided On: Feb 24, 2012
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 3748 of 2011
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh Kumar @ Raju and Others

Respondent

State and Another

Excerpt

.....by asi joginder singh, io of the case. ld. counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that she has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid fir and pursuant to the aforesaid settlement the marriage between the respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.1 has been dissolved by mutual consent. therefore, she is not interested to pursue the case further and she has no objection if the above mentioned fir and the consequent proceedings emanating there from be quashed.6. learned app for the state, on the other hand, submits that if this court is inclined to quash the fir, heavy costs should be imposed upon petitioners as in this process government machinery has been pressed into and precious time of the court has been consumed.7. keeping in view of the settlement arrived at between the respondent no.2; the fact that the marriage between the respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.1 has been dissolved by mutual consent divorce decree dated 13.12.2010; and the statement of the respondent no.2 who is no more interested to pursue the case further, therefore, in the interest of justice, i quash the fir no. 837 dated 12.08.2006 registered at p.s. paschim vihar, new delhi with all the criminal proceedings emanating there from.8. though, i find force in the submissions of ld. app, however, keeping the financial position of the petitioners, i refrain from imposing costs on them.9. criminal m.c. 3748/2011 is disposed of.10. dasti.

Full Judgment

KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.

(Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 837/2006 dated 12.08.2006, a case under Section 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi against the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2.

2. It is further submitted that thereafter the matter has amicably been settled between the parties.

3. Consequent to the settlement, the marriage between the Respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 has been dissolved by mutual consent divorce decree dated 13.12.2010.

4. Ld. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.2/complainant does not wish to pursue the case, therefore the FIR mentioned above and all emanating proceedings thereto may be quashed.

5. Respondent No.2 is personally present with her counsel. She has been identified by ASI Joginder Singh, IO of the case. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that she has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and pursuant to the aforesaid settlement the marriage between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 has been dissolved by mutual consent. Therefore, she is not interested to pursue the case further and she has no objection if the above mentioned FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating there from be quashed.

6. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submits that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs should be imposed upon petitioners as in this process Government machinery has been pressed into and precious time of the Court has been consumed.

7. Keeping in view of the settlement arrived at between the respondent No.2; the fact that the marriage between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 has been dissolved by mutual consent divorce decree dated 13.12.2010; and the statement of the respondent No.2 who is no more interested to pursue the case further, therefore, in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No. 837 dated 12.08.2006 registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi with all the criminal proceedings emanating there from.

8. Though, I find force in the submissions of ld. APP, however, keeping the financial position of the petitioners, I refrain from imposing costs on them.

9. Criminal M.C. 3748/2011 is disposed of.

10. Dasti.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2012 Same Parties Rajesh Kumar @ Raju and Others vs State and Another Same Subject Education Same Judge Suresh Kait