@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S.K. Agarwal, J.@mdashThis is a petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 1207/ 2001 under Sections 406/498-A, IPC. P.S.
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
2. Notice. The same is accepted by Mr. Pawan Sharma, Counsel for State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 married to Manjula; they blessed with one child from the said marriage; that
respondent No. 2 was also earlier married with someone else and blessed with a child from that marriage; and that petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-
law, petitioner No. 3 is sister-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is brother-in-law of respondent No. 2. However, as respondent No. 2 had some
problems with her husband, consequently some arrangements between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were made and they started living
together. This arrangement could not succeed, on account of some misunderstanding, private and personal problems, as a result of which, above
noted FIR was registered. As both the parties were already married and blessed with child, in fact petitioner No. 1 was not married to respondent
No. 2, but it was an arrangement between them; and dispute arose on account of some unrecovered Istridhan articles, stated to have been in
possession of the petitioners. The matter has already been sorted out and petitioner No. 1 duly compensated to respondent No. 2; both are
present in person in the Court. The dispute between the parties resolved by intervention of common friend; and the matter between them has been
sorted out, in terms of compromise. There is no other dispute pending between them and that in the larger interest of both the parties, the said FIR
and the proceedings thereon be quashed. These facts are not contested by learned Counsel for State. The petition is duly supported by the
affidavits of petitioners as well as respondent No. 2, who are present in person and are identified by their respective Counsel.
4. From the material placed on record, it is clear that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended due to personal and private problems.
Therefore, the same can be quashed, in view of the observations of the Apex court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others,
5. In view of the above since all the matters have already been compromised, I feel no useful purpose would be served by permitting the above
proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The above noted FIR and the proceedings emanating there from are quashed.
Petition stands disposed of.
dusty.
