Crl.M.C. No.2198/2008 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C No.2198/2008 % Date of Decision: 14.08.2008 Sandeep Singh Bisht …. Petitioner Through Mr.Usman Chaudhary, Advocate. Versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr …. Respondent Through Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State. SI Gurjit Singh, Investigating Officer. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR against the petitioner could not be quashed as he was not present when an earlier application was filed. The FIR No.250/2007 under Section 498A/406/34 of IPC Police Station Mandir Marg has already been quashed against the other accused by order dated 26th May, 2008 in Crl.M.C No.3907/2007. The respondent No.2 is present who is identified by the IO, SI Gurjit Singh. The respondent No.2 states that her disputes with her husband and other family members have already been settled and her Crl.M.C. No.2198/2008 Page 2 of 2 marriage with her husband has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce and she doesn’t want to continue the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.250/2007 under Section 498A/406/34 of IPC Police Station Mandir Marg against the petitioner, her brother-in-law (Devar). Consequently, in the totality of facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the FIR against the other accused has already been quashed, the FIR No.250/2007 under Section 498A/406/34 of IPC Police Station Mandir Marg against the petitioner is also quashed. The petition is disposed of. Dasti. August 14, 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘k’