Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Saurabh Arora & Ors vs.the State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr
Decided On : Dec-21-2018
Court : Delhi
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Saurabh Arora & Ors vs.the State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => 'No.2.4', (int) 2 => 'No.2', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '10', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => '10,000/-', (int) 9 => '3', (int) 10 => '3' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'December 21, 2018', (int) 1 => '50694/2018', (int) 2 => 'May, 2018', (int) 3 => 'May, 2018', (int) 4 => 'today', (int) 5 => '7th December, 2018', (int) 6 => '11th September, 2018', (int) 7 => '2012', (int) 8 => '3 7', (int) 9 => 'four weeks', (int) 10 => 'today', (int) 11 => '2018' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl', (int) 1 => 'ARORA & ORS', (int) 2 => 'Additional Public Prosecutor for State', (int) 3 => 'IPC', (int) 4 => 'Police Station Kirti Nagar', (int) 5 => 'Counselling Cell', (int) 6 => 'Tis Hazari Courts', (int) 7 => 'Delhi.2', (int) 8 => 'Additional Public Prosecutor', (int) 9 => 'Learned Additional Public Prosecutor', (int) 10 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'FIR', (int) 12 => 'ASI Harish Chander', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'No.481913', (int) 15 => 'FIR', (int) 16 => 'SCC303 Supreme Court', (int) 17 => 'FIR', (int) 18 => 'FIR', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'IPC', (int) 21 => 'Kirti Nagar', (int) 22 => 'DASTI' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.A.', (int) 1 => 'Delhi', (int) 2 => 'Crl', (int) 3 => 'F.I.R. No.700/2015', (int) 4 => 'Delhi' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Varun Mittal', (int) 1 => 'Anish Sharma', (int) 2 => 'M.S. Oberoi', (int) 3 => 'Monika Arora', (int) 4 => 'Amrita Sharma', (int) 5 => 'Notice.3', (int) 6 => 'M.S. Oberoi', (int) 7 => 'Monika Arora', (int) 8 => 'Crl', (int) 9 => 'Crl' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '14th', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => '14th' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1-State' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => '10,00,000/-' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1220261', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Saurabh Arora & Ors ', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Saurabh Arora & Ors vs.the State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr', 'casenote' => null, 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Delhi', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2018-12-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50694/2018 SAURABH ARORA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Varun Mittal and Mr. Anish Sharma, Advocates THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR Versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with ASI Harish Chander Respondent No.2 in person with Ms. Monika Arora and Ms. Amrita Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR </p>ORDER<p> (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.700/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34/509 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) arrived at Counselling Cell, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.</p><p>2. Notice.</p><p>3. Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for respondent No.1-State and Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.</p><p>4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent–State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 1 of 3 of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by her counsel as well as by ASI Harish Chander on the basis of identity proof produced by her.</p><p>5. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today she has received amount of ₹10,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.481913, dated 7th December, 2018. She submits that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 11th September, 2018. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit filed in support of this petition and submits that the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.</p><p>6. In „Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC303 Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-</p><p>"“Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.” Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 2 of 3 7. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.</p><p>8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost before this Court as well as in the trial court, F.I.R. No.700/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34/509 of IPC, registered at police station Kirti Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed. This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of. DASTI. DECEMBER21 2018 p‟ma (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 3 of 3', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr', 'sub' => null, 'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SUG/judgement/26-12-2018/SUG21122018CRLMM66252018.pdf', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1220261' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Saurabh Arora & Ors vs.the State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => 'No.2.4', (int) 2 => 'No.2', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '10', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => '10,000/-', (int) 9 => '3', (int) 10 => '3' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'December 21, 2018', (int) 1 => '50694/2018', (int) 2 => 'May, 2018', (int) 3 => 'May, 2018', (int) 4 => 'today', (int) 5 => '7th December, 2018', (int) 6 => '11th September, 2018', (int) 7 => '2012', (int) 8 => '3 7', (int) 9 => 'four weeks', (int) 10 => 'today', (int) 11 => '2018' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl', (int) 1 => 'ARORA & ORS', (int) 2 => 'Additional Public Prosecutor for State', (int) 3 => 'IPC', (int) 4 => 'Police Station Kirti Nagar', (int) 5 => 'Counselling Cell', (int) 6 => 'Tis Hazari Courts', (int) 7 => 'Delhi.2', (int) 8 => 'Additional Public Prosecutor', (int) 9 => 'Learned Additional Public Prosecutor', (int) 10 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'FIR', (int) 12 => 'ASI Harish Chander', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'No.481913', (int) 15 => 'FIR', (int) 16 => 'SCC303 Supreme Court', (int) 17 => 'FIR', (int) 18 => 'FIR', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'IPC', (int) 21 => 'Kirti Nagar', (int) 22 => 'DASTI' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.A.', (int) 1 => 'Delhi', (int) 2 => 'Crl', (int) 3 => 'F.I.R. No.700/2015', (int) 4 => 'Delhi' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Varun Mittal', (int) 1 => 'Anish Sharma', (int) 2 => 'M.S. Oberoi', (int) 3 => 'Monika Arora', (int) 4 => 'Amrita Sharma', (int) 5 => 'Notice.3', (int) 6 => 'M.S. Oberoi', (int) 7 => 'Monika Arora', (int) 8 => 'Crl', (int) 9 => 'Crl' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '14th', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => '14th' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1-State' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => '10,00,000/-' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1220261', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Saurabh Arora & Ors ', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Saurabh Arora & Ors vs.the State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr', 'casenote' => null, 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Delhi', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2018-12-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50694/2018 SAURABH ARORA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Varun Mittal and Mr. Anish Sharma, Advocates THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR Versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with ASI Harish Chander Respondent No.2 in person with Ms. Monika Arora and Ms. Amrita Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR </p>ORDER<p> (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.700/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34/509 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) arrived at Counselling Cell, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.</p><p>2. Notice.</p><p>3. Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for respondent No.1-State and Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.</p><p>4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent–State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 1 of 3 of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by her counsel as well as by ASI Harish Chander on the basis of identity proof produced by her.</p><p>5. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today she has received amount of ₹10,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.481913, dated 7th December, 2018. She submits that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 11th September, 2018. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit filed in support of this petition and submits that the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.</p><p>6. In „Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC303 Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-</p><p>"“Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.” Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 2 of 3 7. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.</p><p>8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost before this Court as well as in the trial court, F.I.R. No.700/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34/509 of IPC, registered at police station Kirti Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed. This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of. DASTI. DECEMBER21 2018 p‟ma (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 3 of 3', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr', 'sub' => null, 'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SUG/judgement/26-12-2018/SUG21122018CRLMM66252018.pdf', 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1220261' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Saurabh Arora & Ors vs.the State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => 'No.2.4', (int) 2 => 'No.2', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '10', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => '10,000/-', (int) 9 => '3', (int) 10 => '3' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'December 21, 2018', (int) 1 => '50694/2018', (int) 2 => 'May, 2018', (int) 3 => 'May, 2018', (int) 4 => 'today', (int) 5 => '7th December, 2018', (int) 6 => '11th September, 2018', (int) 7 => '2012', (int) 8 => '3 7', (int) 9 => 'four weeks', (int) 10 => 'today', (int) 11 => '2018' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl', (int) 1 => 'ARORA & ORS', (int) 2 => 'Additional Public Prosecutor for State', (int) 3 => 'IPC', (int) 4 => 'Police Station Kirti Nagar', (int) 5 => 'Counselling Cell', (int) 6 => 'Tis Hazari Courts', (int) 7 => 'Delhi.2', (int) 8 => 'Additional Public Prosecutor', (int) 9 => 'Learned Additional Public Prosecutor', (int) 10 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'FIR', (int) 12 => 'ASI Harish Chander', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'No.481913', (int) 15 => 'FIR', (int) 16 => 'SCC303 Supreme Court', (int) 17 => 'FIR', (int) 18 => 'FIR', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'IPC', (int) 21 => 'Kirti Nagar', (int) 22 => 'DASTI' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.A.', (int) 1 => 'Delhi', (int) 2 => 'Crl', (int) 3 => 'F.I.R. No.700/2015', (int) 4 => 'Delhi' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Varun Mittal', (int) 1 => 'Anish Sharma', (int) 2 => 'M.S. Oberoi', (int) 3 => 'Monika Arora', (int) 4 => 'Amrita Sharma', (int) 5 => 'Notice.3', (int) 6 => 'M.S. Oberoi', (int) 7 => 'Monika Arora', (int) 8 => 'Crl', (int) 9 => 'Crl' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '14th', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => '14th' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1-State' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => '10,00,000/-' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1220261', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Saurabh Arora & Ors ', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Saurabh Arora & Ors vs.the State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr', 'casenote' => null, 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Delhi', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2018-12-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50694/2018 SAURABH ARORA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Varun Mittal and Mr. Anish Sharma, Advocates THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR Versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with ASI Harish Chander Respondent No.2 in person with Ms. Monika Arora and Ms. Amrita Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR </p>ORDER<p> (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.700/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34/509 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) arrived at Counselling Cell, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.</p><p>2. Notice.</p><p>3. Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for respondent No.1-State and Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.</p><p>4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent–State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 1 of 3 of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by her counsel as well as by ASI Harish Chander on the basis of identity proof produced by her.</p><p>5. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today she has received amount of ₹10,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.481913, dated 7th December, 2018. She submits that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 11th September, 2018. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit filed in support of this petition and submits that the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.</p><p>6. In „Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC303 Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-</p><p>"“Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.” Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 2 of 3 7. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.</p><p>8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost before this Court as well as in the trial court, F.I.R. No.700/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34/509 of IPC, registered at police station Kirti Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed. This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of. DASTI. DECEMBER21 2018 p‟ma (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 3 of 3', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr', 'sub' => null, 'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SUG/judgement/26-12-2018/SUG21122018CRLMM66252018.pdf', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1220261' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Saurabh Arora & Ors vs.the State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => 'No.2.4', (int) 2 => 'No.2', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '10', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => '10,000/-', (int) 9 => '3', (int) 10 => '3' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'December 21, 2018', (int) 1 => '50694/2018', (int) 2 => 'May, 2018', (int) 3 => 'May, 2018', (int) 4 => 'today', (int) 5 => '7th December, 2018', (int) 6 => '11th September, 2018', (int) 7 => '2012', (int) 8 => '3 7', (int) 9 => 'four weeks', (int) 10 => 'today', (int) 11 => '2018' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl', (int) 1 => 'ARORA & ORS', (int) 2 => 'Additional Public Prosecutor for State', (int) 3 => 'IPC', (int) 4 => 'Police Station Kirti Nagar', (int) 5 => 'Counselling Cell', (int) 6 => 'Tis Hazari Courts', (int) 7 => 'Delhi.2', (int) 8 => 'Additional Public Prosecutor', (int) 9 => 'Learned Additional Public Prosecutor', (int) 10 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'FIR', (int) 12 => 'ASI Harish Chander', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'No.481913', (int) 15 => 'FIR', (int) 16 => 'SCC303 Supreme Court', (int) 17 => 'FIR', (int) 18 => 'FIR', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'IPC', (int) 21 => 'Kirti Nagar', (int) 22 => 'DASTI' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.A.', (int) 1 => 'Delhi', (int) 2 => 'Crl', (int) 3 => 'F.I.R. No.700/2015', (int) 4 => 'Delhi' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Varun Mittal', (int) 1 => 'Anish Sharma', (int) 2 => 'M.S. Oberoi', (int) 3 => 'Monika Arora', (int) 4 => 'Amrita Sharma', (int) 5 => 'Notice.3', (int) 6 => 'M.S. Oberoi', (int) 7 => 'Monika Arora', (int) 8 => 'Crl', (int) 9 => 'Crl' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '14th', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => '14th' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1-State' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => '10,00,000/-' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1220261', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Saurabh Arora & Ors ', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Saurabh Arora & Ors vs.the State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr', 'casenote' => null, 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Delhi', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2018-12-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50694/2018 SAURABH ARORA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Varun Mittal and Mr. Anish Sharma, Advocates THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR Versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with ASI Harish Chander Respondent No.2 in person with Ms. Monika Arora and Ms. Amrita Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR </p>ORDER<p> (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.700/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34/509 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) arrived at Counselling Cell, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.</p><p>2. Notice.</p><p>3. Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for respondent No.1-State and Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.</p><p>4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent–State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 1 of 3 of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by her counsel as well as by ASI Harish Chander on the basis of identity proof produced by her.</p><p>5. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today she has received amount of ₹10,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.481913, dated 7th December, 2018. She submits that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 11th September, 2018. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit filed in support of this petition and submits that the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.</p><p>6. In „Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC303 Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-</p><p>"“Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.” Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 2 of 3 7. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.</p><p>8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost before this Court as well as in the trial court, F.I.R. No.700/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34/509 of IPC, registered at police station Kirti Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed. This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of. DASTI. DECEMBER21 2018 p‟ma (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 Page 3 of 3', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State ( Nct of Delhi ) & Anr', 'sub' => null, 'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SUG/judgement/26-12-2018/SUG21122018CRLMM66252018.pdf', 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1220261' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
CARDINAL: 1, No.2.4, No.2, 1, 3, 10, two, 2, 10,000/-, 3, 3
DATE: December 21, 2018, 50694/2018, May, 2018, May, 2018, today, 7th December, 2018, 11th September, 2018, 2012, 3 7, four weeks, today, 2018
ORG: M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl, ARORA & ORS, Additional Public Prosecutor for State, IPC, Police Station Kirti Nagar, Counselling Cell, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.2, Additional Public Prosecutor, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Court, FIR, ASI Harish Chander, Court, No.481913, FIR, SCC303 Supreme Court, FIR, FIR, Court, IPC, Kirti Nagar, DASTI
GPE: M.A., Delhi, Crl, F.I.R. No.700/2015, Delhi
PERSON: Varun Mittal, Anish Sharma, M.S. Oberoi, Monika Arora, Amrita Sharma, Notice.3, M.S. Oberoi, Monika Arora, Crl, Crl
ORDINAL: 14th, first, 14th
PRODUCT: No.1-State
MONEY: 10,00,000/-