Rakesh & Ors vs State & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 5938 Del

$~38
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+        CRL.M.C. 4028/2011

%               Judgment delivered on: 5th December, 2011

         RAKESH & ORS                          ..... Petitioner
                                 Through : Mr. T.S. Gahlot, Adv.

                        versus


         STATE & ANR                         ..... Respondent
                                 Through : Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP.
                                 Mr. Suresh Chand Joshi, Adv. for R2.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT



SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1        Notice issued.
2        Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State.
3        Mr. Suresh Chand Joshi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
Respondent No. 2.
4        Learned counsel for petitioners submits that vide FIR No.

269/2001, a case under Sections 406/498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent

No. 2 at P.S. Timar Pur, Delhi.

5 During investigation Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added in the FIR.

6 Learned APP for State submits that the Charge-sheet has been filed and the case is at the stage of Prosecution Evidence before the learned trial court.

7 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have amicably settled the matter vide compromise deed dated 22.02.2011 qua the aforesaid FIR. It is submitted that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 09.07.2003.

8 Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today. She has been duly identified by her counsel, Mr. Suresh Chand Joshi, Advocate and IO of the case SI Ramesh Dixit.

9 Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on instructions submits that the disputes have been settled between the parties. Respondent No. 2 is no more interested in pursuing the FIR further in view of settlement arrived at between the parties and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

10 Learned APP for State submits that since the Government Machinery has been mis-used and the precious time of the court is also consumed, therefore, heavy costs must be imposed upon the petitioners before quashing the FIR.

11 Though I find force in the submission made by learned APP, but I refrain myself on imposing costs upon the petitioners keepin in view their poor financial position.

12 In the interest of justice, and keeping in view the statement made by respondent No2, I quash FIR No. 269/2001, registered at P.S. Timar Pur, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom. 13 Criminal M.C. 4028/2011 stands allowed.

14    Dasti to both the parties.



                                      SURESH KAIT,J

DECEMBER 05, 2011
j