Shailender Kumar Virwani & Anr vs State & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 6071 Del

$~32
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        CRL.M.C. 4120/2011
%            Judgment delivered on:12th December, 2011


         SHAILENDER KUMAR VIRWANI & ANR               ..... Petitioner
                         Through : Mr. Bhupender Mahtani, Adv.
                  versus
         STATE & ANR                ..... Respondent
                         Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
                         Mr. Devender Khatana, Adv. For R2.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT


SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CRL. M.A. 19176/2011 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL. M.C. 4120/2011

1        Notice issued.

2        Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State.

3        Mr. Devender Khatana, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf
of respondent No. 2.



 4     Learned counsel for petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 610

dated 22.04.2006, a case under Section 498 A IPC was registered against the petitioners at P.S. Sultanpuri, Delhi.

5 Learned APP for State submits that the Charge-sheet has been filed and Charges are yet to be framed.

6 Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today. She has been duly identified by her counsel, Mr. Devender Khatana, Advocate

7 Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on instructions submits that the matter has been settled amongst the parties and the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved vide divorce by mutual consent dated 20.09.2011. He submits that respondent No. 2 is no more interested in pursuing the case and has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

8 Learned APP for State submits that Government Machinery has been mis-used and precious time of the court has been consumed, therefore, heavy costs shall be imposed before quashing the FIR.

9 Though, I find force in the submission made by learned APP for State, but keeping in view, the poor financial condition of the petitioners, I refrain imposing costs upon them.

10 In the interest of justice and keeping in view the statement of respondent No. 2, I quash the FIR No. 610/2006, P.S. Sultanpuri and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

11 Criminal M.C. 4120/2011 is allowed.

12 Dasti.

SURESH KAIT,J

DECEMBER 12, 2011 j