498a/406

Ms. Sangita Bhayana Vs. Ms. Richa Kapoor for State

Court: High Court of Delhi Bench: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA Ms. Sangita Bhayana for the petitioners’ Complainant in person. Ms. Richa Kapoor for State on 28.03.2007 Law Point: 498 A Quashed – Against sister and mother in laws where the wife resiled on the compromise JUDGEMENT This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for […]

Ms. Sangita Bhayana Vs. Ms. Richa Kapoor for State
498a/406 Shonee Kapoor

Ms. Sangita Bhayana Vs. Ms. Richa Kapoor for State

Shonee Kapoor, men's rights activist and legal consultant in India

Written and analysed by Shonee Kapoor

Legal Consultant, Author & Men's Rights Activist

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

Ms. Sangita Bhayana for the petitioners’ Complainant in person. Ms. Richa Kapoor for State on 28.03.2007 

Law Point:
498 A Quashed – Against sister and mother in laws where the wife resiled on the compromise

JUDGEMENT

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 410/2002, under Sections 498A/34 IPC, Police Station Mandir Marg, New Delhi. Wife who lodged FIR, entered into a compromise signed a compromise deed. In the compromise deed she specifically stated that after compromise she shall withdraw the case and shall co-operate in quashing FIR No. 410/2002, under sections 498-A/34 IPC, Police Station Mandir Marg, New Delhi, against Smt. Ratan Mala Jain, Miss Neera Jain and Smt. Gunjan Verma. She is presently living with her husband in a separate house in rented accommodation. She states that she agreed to withdraw the case only against Smt. Ratan Mala Jain whereas compromise deed on the record shows contrary. It is apparent that after entering into compromise with the parties and signed a compromise deed whereby she agreed to co-operate in quashing FIR she is now resiling from her compromise. The criminal case against her in which she was accused was compounded by the petitioner on the basis of compromise. She is living with her husband. She wants to use criminal justice as a tool against the petitioners who are her sister-in-laws and mother-in-law. She wants to enjoy the company of the husband keeping other relatives on tenterhooks. Considering all these facts of this case, I consider FIR should be quashed and is hereby quashed. Petition stands disposed of.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us

Tags

498a/406 Judgement Quash 406 498a court judgement men's rights quash shonee kapoor

Share

Shonee Kapoor, men's rights activist and legal consultant in India

Shonee Kapoor

Indian men's rights activist, legal consultant and author focused on matrimonial law, 498A, maintenance, child custody, parental alienation and gender-neutral laws. He is not an advocate or lawyer.

Share Your Thoughts

Comments are moderated before publication.