• [ 8 % 03.06.2010 Present: Mr. Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for State with S.I. Ram Niwas, EOW Cell, North East. Respondent No.2 in person. + Crl. M.A. No. 7595/2010 * Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Crl. M.C. No.1977/2010 & Crl. M.A. No. 7594/2010 At the outset, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the translation of the charge sheet filed on page 38 of the record there is a typographical error in column 7, inasmuch, as the offences mentioned are under Sections 304/302/34 IPC. He refers to the second last page of the said translation i.e. at page 40 where Sections 498A/406/34 IPC have been mentioned. The said error is taken note of. Issue notice. Mr. M.P. Singh, learned APP, accepts notice . Respondent No.2 is also present in Court and she accepts notice. She is identified by the 1.0. S.I. Ram Niwas as well as by counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.196/2003 filed under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at police station Seema Puri. The said FIR came to be registered on the basis of the complaint made by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. Petitioner No. I & respondent No.2 were married on Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified • • 15.02.2002. As differences arose between the parties, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered. The litigation between the parties got settled on 01.05.2007 and since then the petitioner No.l and respondent No.2 have been residing together as husband and wife. Since then the respondent No.2 has also bornta child on 10.02.2009. "' The respondent No.2, who is present in Court, submits that she does not wish to pursue the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom in view of the fact that she is happily residing with the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid position, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom any further. The same are, accordingly, quashed. Petition stands disposed of. VIPIN SANGHI, J. • 2010 rsk