Anoop Shukla & Ors vs State & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 6138 Del

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+     CRL.M.C. 3267/2011

%            Judgment delivered on:14th December, 2011


      ANOOP SHUKLA & ORS                    ..... Petitioner
                  Through : Mr. D.K. Singh, Adv.

                     versus


      STATE & ANR                            ..... Respondent
                              Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for
                              State.
                              Mr. Tarun Gautam Adv. for R2.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT



SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1     Notice issued.
2     Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State.
3     Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.

322 dated 15.06.2010, a case under Sections 498-A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 2 at P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi. 4 Further submits that vide settlement dated 14.12.2010, the

matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3.5 Lacs as full and final settlement to respondent No. 2. Out of the total settled amount, an amount of Rs.2.75 Lacs has already been paid to respondent No. 2. 5 Today, the petitioner No. 1 handed over a Demand Draft No. 000326 dated 10.12.2011, drawn on HDFC Bank for a sum of Rs.75,000/- to respondent No. 2 in the court, who accepts the same without protest.

6 Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today. She has been duly identified by her counsel, Mr. Tarun Gautam. 7 Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits on instructions that the matter has been settled and the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 has already been dissolved vide decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 13.07.2011. She has received the entire settled amount and has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

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

9 Further submits that heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioners as Government Machinery has been pressed and precious time of the court has been consumed.

10 Though I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State, but keeping in view the fact that the petitioner No. 1 is jobless and petitioner No.2 is pursuing his study, I, therefore, refrain from imposing costs upon him.

11 In the interest of justice, keeping in view the facts and

circumstances and statement of respondent No. 2, I quash FIR No. 322/2010 P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

12    Criminal M.C. 3267/2011 is allowed.
13    Dasti.




                                               SURESH KAIT, J

DECEMBER 14, 2011
j