SUMEET PAUL Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. KC Gautam, who submits that initially an FIR was lodged by respondent No. 3, the wife of the petitioner No. 1. The learned counsel further contends that respondent No. 3 and the petitioner No. 1 are the husband and wife and they had some family disputes which has resulted in the FIR dated 17.09.11. On the basis of the FIR, the police registered a case under section 498 -A/494/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently the matter was charge sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate and the case is pending as on today.

(2.) IN the meantime, respondent No. 3, the wife gave birth to a child and came to a settlement with the petitioner No. 1 and further the respondent No. 3 did not intend to proceed with the case. The learned counsel also pointed out that the statement of the respondent No. 3 was recorded which is at Annexure -IV of this petition as well as order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, East Khasi Hills, Shillong at Annexure -V. The learned counsel pointed out that since the matter is purely a family disputes and since both the parties have settled the matter amicably. Therefore, there is no point to drag the case further and if the proceeding is not quashed, the matrimonial life between the parties may deteriorate beyond repair.

(3.) I have perused the statement of the respondent No. 3 which is at Annexure -IV (Page -18) of the petition which is reproduced below: