AMIT VOHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are present in person along with the counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel contend that the parties have settled their disputes and the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent under Section 13b (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by decree dated 30th May, 2007. Under the settlement respondent No. 2 became entitled for rs. 70,000/- out of which Rs. 46,000/- was paid to the respondent No. 2 earlier and the balance amount of Rs. 24,000/- has been paid to the respondent No. 2 in cash today in the Court.

(2.) LET the statement of respondent No. 2 be recorded. The Investigating officer, Sub-Inspector J. K. Singh has identified Ms. Silky.

(3.) THE statement of respondent No. 2 has been recorded. Respondent No. 2 has contended that she has settled all her claims against the petitioners. Her marriage has already been dissolved. She has also received the entire amount settled between the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 339/2004 dated 10th November, 2004, under Section 406/498-A/34 registered at P. S. Geeta Colony. It shall also be in the interest of justice in case the FIR No. 339/2004, P. S. Geeta Colony, under Section 406/498-A/34 IPC and all the proceedings emanating there from are quashed against all the petitioners.