Amarjit Singh Vs. State - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/700575
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnMay-13-1993
Case NumberCr. M. (M) 2608 of 1992 and Cr. M. 2315 of 1992
JudgeSat Pal, J.
Reported inII(1993)DMC567
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482
AppellantAmarjit Singh
RespondentState
Appellant Advocate Jagdish Singh, Adv
Respondent Advocate A.K. Singh, Adv. for the Respondent No. 1
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.
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.