Harmeet Singh And Ors. vs State And Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3600 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CRL. M.C. 77/2010

                                                        Decided on 04.08.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :

HARMEET SINGH AND ORS.                               ..... Petitioners
                   Through: Mr. Baldev Raj, Advocate with petitioner
                   No.1 in person.

                    versus

STATE AND ANR.                                              ..... Respondents
                          Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State.
                          Mr. Samson Honey, Advocate for respondent No.2
                          with respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may           No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?          No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                  No
        reported in the Digest?


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482

of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.931/2003 lodged by

the respondent No.2, father of Ms. Devender Kaur, wife of petitioner No.1

under Section 498A/307/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Tilak Nagar.

2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of petitioner No.1

was solemnised with Ms. Devender Kaur, daughter of respondent No.2 on

24.04.2003. There is no issue from out of the wedlock. It is the case of the

petitioners that on 01.08.2003, the daughter of respondent No.2 consumed

few capsules of the medicine, Spasmo Proxyvon and lost consciousness,

whereafter petitioner No.1 rushed her to the hospital for treatment.

Thereafter, respondent No.2 was informed about the incident. After a gap of

three and half months, respondent No.2 lodged the aforesaid complaint

against the petitioners claiming that they had a hand in his daughter's

ingestion of the aforesaid medicine. Incidently, the daughter of respondent

No.2 went into coma in the month of August, 2003 itself and her health

condition remains the same till date.

3. After the investigation was completed in the aforesaid FIR, a

charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners and in the pending

proceedings, the learned ASJ has framed charges. Counsel for the

petitioners states that the petitioners applied for bail before the concerned

court and are on regular bail.

4. Apart from the aforesaid complaint, respondent No.2 also filed

two complaint cases against the petitioners under Section 125 of the Cr.PC

and under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2003, on behalf of his daughter. During the pendency of the

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate

directed the parties to explore the possibility of arriving at a negotiated

settlement by approaching the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts. As a

result thereof, a settlement took place between the parties on 24.10.2009

(Annexure P-2). In terms of the settlement, it was agreed between the

petitioners and the respondent No.2 that the petitioners shall pay a sum of

Rs.11,50,000/- to the respondent No.2 for the welfare of his daughter in the

manner as set out in para 2 of the Settlement Agreement. In turn,

respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw the two complaint cases filed by him

against the petitioners. The parties also agreed that they would file a

divorce petition for dissolution of the marriage of petitioner No.1 with Ms.

Devender Kaur by mutual consent.

5. Counsels for the parties state today that the petitions filed by

the respondent No.2 under Section 125 Cr.PC and under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2003, have since been

withdrawn by him and further, the petition for dissolution of the marriage

between the petitioner No.1 and the daughter of respondent No.2 by mutual

consent has also been filed before the concerned Court. Certified copy of

the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the learned ADJ on the aforesaid

divorce petition is handed over by the counsel for the petitioners and taken

on record. The first motion having been filed by the parties, the matter is

pending for filing of second motion, which is likely to be taken up in January,

2011.

6. Respondent No.2 is present in Court and states that out of the

agreed sum of Rs.11,50,000/-, he received a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- before

the learned ASJ in the petition filed for dissolution of marriage by mutual

consent. Another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is stated to have been received by

him yesterday, thus leaving a balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which the

parties state shall be paid by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2

when the second motion for dissolution of marriage is taken up before the

concerned court. The respondent No.2 states that he has no objection to

the FIR lodged against the petitioners being quashed. He further states that

initially when the police had recorded his statement after the incident on

01.08.2003, he had not attributed any blame to the petitioners. However,

subsequently when his daughter went into coma, he got apprehensive and

changed his earlier statement of absolving the petitioners by giving a second

statement after a period of three and a half months and had lodged the

aforesaid FIR.

7. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the

record. I have also considered the submissions made by the parties. The

respondent No.2 categorically states that initially when the police had

recorded his statement after the incident on 01.08.2003, he had not blamed

the petitioners for the incident. However, subsequently when his daughter

went into coma, he got apprehensive and changed his earlier statement of

absolving the petitioners by giving a second statement after three and a half

months and lodged the aforesaid FIR. A perusal of the complaint lodged by

the respondent No.2 on 23.11.2003 bears out the aforesaid submission

made by respondent No.2 that initially, there was no mention made in the

complaint as to any complicity on the part of the petitioners with regard to

ingestion of Spasmo Proxyvon by Ms. Devender Kaur, which resulted in her

going into coma. The second statement appears to have been an

afterthought. Till date, there is nothing point out from the record which

indicates any common intention or knowledge attributable to the petitioners

for the condition of the daughter of respondent No.2. It appears that the

parties have arrived at the aforesaid settlement out of their own free will and

volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters. The

respondent No.2 has confirmed having received a sum of Rs.10,50,000/-

from the petitioners and does not oppose the prayer made in the petition. It

therefore does not appear that any useful purpose would be served by

proceeding further with the present case.

8. Accordingly, FIR No. 931/2003 is quashed alongwith the pending

proceedings arising therefrom.

9. The petition is disposed of.

                                                         (HIMA KOHLI)
AUGUST 04, 2010                                             JUDGE
rkb