RAM KISHAN & ORS Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A.13493-495/2014(exemption)

(2.) The complainant is also present in person. The I.O. identifies the petitioners as well as respondent No.2. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 Ram Kishan was married to the second respondent - complainant herein, on 08.05.1984; and ultimately, due to certain matrimonial disputes that arose between the complainant and her husband as well as her in-laws, the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged by her. It is further stated that the complainant and first petitioner have also obtained a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in HMA No.776/12 on 06.12.2012 by the Additional District Judge-02(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. No children were born out of this marriage. Further, it is stated that on 09.02.2012, the matter was referred to mediation in a complaint case No.153/2010, that had also been instituted by the complainant, and all the terms and conditions on which the parties have settled their disputes, have been duly recorded there. A copy of the said proceedings before the Mediation Centre, Delhi on 09.02.2012, has also been annexed to this petition. It is stated that the chargesheet in the matter has been filed and the matter is now listed for prosecution evidence. Further on 06.12.2012, separate statements of the first petitioner Ram Kishan as well as the complainant Ms. Rita Rajput were recorded on oath before the Matrimonial Court in the aforesaid HMA No.776/2012, specifically approbating the aforesaid mediation proceedings held on 09.02.2012 and further that all the terms of the settlement have been complied with. Today the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- which was due and payable to the complainant is handed over to the complainant in cash.

(3.) The complainant also specifically approbates that settlement and further states that nothing is due from the petitioners to her and that she does not wish to continue with the proceedings and that the matter be now closed. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, since the matter is primarily a matrimonial dispute, where the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings since there is little likelihood of success.