ORDER

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeks the quashing of FIR No. 51/2003 registered at Police Station Mansarovar Park against the Petitioner under Sections 385/500/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The petitioner was married to Shri Ranjan Kumar Mattoo on 22nd July 2001. As a result of differences that arose between them, the marriage stood dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 1st February 2003.

3. Five days after the date of the decree Shri Mohan Lal Mattoo, the father of Shri Ranjan Kumar Mattoo filed a complaint under Section 385/500/504/506 IPC against the petitioner in which an order was passed on 7th February 2003 by the learned MM under Section 156(3) CrPC for registering a FIR. Earlier to the above proceedings, the respondent No.2 had filed various complaints against the petitioner but no action was taken thereon by the police officials. The allegation made by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner is that she was demanding money from him and threatening him with the filing of false cases which would ruin his reputation. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the case on 22nd May 2003. It is submitted that with the matrimonial disputes having already come to an end, little purpose will be served by allowing these criminal proceedings at the instance of respondent No.2, the father of the former husband, to continue. It is submitted that the present FIR itself is filed on the basis of events that transpired during the subsistence of the marriage and when the marriage has come to an end, there is no legal justification for continuing the proceedings.

4. The Respondent No.2 was asked to remain present in court by an order dated 13th March 2008 in order to ascertain whether he was still interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings. However, on the next date, i.e., 26th May 2008, counsel for respondent No.2 stated that his client was unwell and therefore could not remain present in Court. On the next date, i.e., 22nd July 2008, the respondent No.2 was not present. Today despite one pass over neither respondent No. 2 nor his counsel is present in Court.

5. Having perused the papers and considered the submissions of the petitioner this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose will be served in keeping in the present criminal proceedings against the petitioner alive particularly when the son of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner, who were earlier married have resolved their differences and their marriage had come to an end by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

6. Accordingly, the FIR No. 51 of 2003 registered at police station Mansarovar Park and all proceedings consequent thereto shall stand quashed. Application stands disposed of accordingly.