Crl.M.C. No.1239/2007 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.1239/2007 % Date of Decision: 11.08.2008 Shri Khaleel Ahmad & Others …. Petitioners Through Mr.Praveen Chawla and Mr.Badri Dass, Advocates Versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anothers …. Respondents Through Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State along with respondent No.2. 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. * Learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No.1, and respondent No.2 are present and state that parties have since started living together and they have been able to resolve their disputes. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.650/2005 under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Nand Nagari, and it shall be conducive for future peace between the parties. Let the statement of respondent No.2, Smt.Ruksar, be recorded who is identified by the counsel for the petitioners. Crl.M.C. No.1239/2007 Page 2 of 2 Statement of respondent No.2 has been recorded. Respondent No.2 states that she has started living with petitioner No.1. In order to have future peace and a normal matrimonial life and in the interest of welfare of girl child from this wedlock, the respondent No.2 does not wish to continue with the proceeding pursuant to the above-said FIR against the petitioners. It is apparent that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the proceedings pursuant to said FIR, rather continuing of these proceedings may be detrimental to the married life of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. It shall also be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR No.650/2005 under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Nand Nagari and all the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Vats, also has no objection to quashing of the FIR against the petitioner No.1. In the totality of facts and circumstances, the FIR No.650/2005 under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Nand Nagari and all proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed. The petition is disposed of. Dasti. August 11, 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘Dev’