High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./800/2019

Narendra Pal Singh & ORS v. The State (NCT Of Delhi ) & ANR

2019-02-13Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.K. Pathak3 pages

$~30 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 800/2019 NARENDRA PAL SINGH & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 13.02.2019 It is submitted that the petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and maternal father-in-law of respondent no.2. Husband of respondent no.2 has died on 28th September, 2016. It is further submitted that petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and respondent no.2 have settled their dispute amicably before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 4th September, 2018. Therefore, FIR No.

247/2011 under Section 498A/406 /34/174A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi may be quashed.

Learned APP for the State submits that Section 174A IPC cannot be

quashed as this offence is against the State and is not between the private individuals.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 174A IPC was invoked against the husband of respondent no.2 only, who has since died. The offence under Section 174A IPC has not been invoked against the petitioners.

Respondent no.2 is present in court along with counsel and she has been identified by SI Kaushik Ghosh, Police Station Shahdara. She submits that she has received the settled amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioners vide demand draft handed over in court today. She further submits that she has settled the matter with the petitioners of her own free will and without any undue force, pressure or coercion. Respondent no. 2 says that she has no objection in case aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no. 2 voluntarily, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the criminal proceedings pending. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous. Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J FEBRUARY 13, 2019 b