← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/2925/2016

Sukhpal v. State & ANR.

2016-10-26Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi2 pages

$~11.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2925/2016 and Crl.M.A. No. 15628/2016 SUKHPAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Petitioner in person.

versus STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms.

Richa Kapoor, ASC and Ms.Seema Patnaha & Ms. Mallika Parmar, Advocates along with ASI Virendra Kumar, PS - Zafrabad, for the State.

Respondent No.2/ complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 26.10.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner is not available as he is unwell. The petitioner is, however, present in person. He is identified by the I.O. The complainant/ respondent No.2 is also present in Court. On the last date, learned counsel have sought time to implead other accused in the matter, who are other family members of the petitioner. The complainant/ respondent No.2 is the wife of the petitioner. The disputes arose between the parties due to marital discord. However, they

have resolved the same and the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are happily residing together for the last two years. The complainant/ respondent No.2 states that she does not wish to pursue her complaint against any of the accused, and she joins the prayer for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. She states that continuation of the proceedings will vitiate the atmosphere in her matrimonial home and spoil her relationship with her in-laws and other family members.

The case is at the stage of investigation. The charge-sheet has not yet been filed.

In view of the aforesaid, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIR in question and the proceedings arising therefrom pending against any of the accused. Even though the other accused have not been impleaded as party petitioners, I am inclined to allow this petition so as to save the harassment to the parties and to save the matrimonial life of the petitioner and the complainant/ respondent No.2. The FIR in question and the proceedings arising therefrom are, accordingly, quashed. VIPIN SANGHI, J OCTOBER 26, 2016 B.S. Rohella