Narender Kumar Khurana vs Sangita & Anr.

$~35
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+     CRL.M.C. 395/2012


      NARENDER KUMAR KHURANA              ..... Petitioner
                  Through : Mr. Ankit Jain, Adv.

                     versus


      SANGITA & ANR.              ..... Respondent
                   Through : Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Adv. for
                   R1 with Respondent No.1 in person.
                   Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP for State/R2
                   with IO/SI Dharamender.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT


SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CRL. M.C. 395/2012

1. Notice issued.

2. Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1

3. Learned APP for State accepts notice on behalf of State/respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the parties submits that vide FIR No. 23 dated 19.01.2011, a case under Sections 498 A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.1 at P.S. Burari, Delhi.

5. Further submits that the matter has been amicably compromised vide Settlement dated 05.02.2011 before Judge-I/Family court/Rohini/Delhi. Pursuant thereto, the marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 1 has been dissolved by way of decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 03.11.2011.

6. Respondent No.1, who is personally present in the court today has been duly identified by IO/SI Dharmender, Nagar, Delhi. She submits that consequent to settlement dated 05.02.2011, the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 03.11.2011.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 has received all the settlement amount from the petitioner including remaining Rs.35,000/- has been handed over to respondent No.1 by way of Demand Draft No. 298785 drawn on P.N.B., Sant Nirankari Colony, Delhi-110009 dated 08.10.2011 in favour of respondent No.1, which she has accepted without protest.

8. Learned APP for State submits that since the settlement had been arrived at between the parties, the police has not filed Charge- sheet in the matter.

9. Further submits that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR in the present case, then heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioner as in the process, Government Machinery has been used and precious time of the court has been consumed.

10. I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State. The petitioner is running a business of Garments and having a shop in main Market in Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi. He seems to be a man of means. I impose a costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid in favour of 'Delhi Police Welfare Fund', PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi within a period of 02 weeks from today under intimation to the IO/SHO concerned.

11. The IO concerned/SHO P.S. Burari, Delhi shall ensure the timely deposition of the costs by the petitioner.

12. Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of respondent No.1 into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 23/2011 registered at P.S. Burari, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

13. Criminal M.C. 395/2012 is disposed of.

14. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J FEBRUARY 03, 2012/j/RS Crl.M.C.No.395/2012 Page 3 of 3