Ajay Parmar & Ors vs State & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 5294 Del

$~ 6
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              CRL.M.C.No.2606/2011

%              Judgment delivered on:01st November, 2011

AJAY PARMAR & ORS                                   ..... Petitioners
                               Through : Mr. Alok Sinha, Advocate.

                      versus

STATE & ANR                                       ..... Respondent
                               Through : Ms. Ritu Gaba, APP for the
                               State.
                               Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate for R-2 with
                               R-2 in person.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?                       No
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                        No
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported
        in the Digest?                                            No

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that respondent No.2/Ms.Sapna

Parmar has already settled her disputes qua FIR

No.538/2006 registered under Sections 406/498A Indian

Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Sarojni Nagar against petitioner

No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are father-in-law and

mother-in-law, respectively.

2. Today, it is submitted that respondent No.2/Ms.Sapna

Parmar/respondent has amicably settled all her disputes qua

the said FIR vide Memorandum of Understanding dated

3rd March, 2011. Pursuant thereto, the marriage between

petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved

vide a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated

24th October, 2011.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, in view of

settlement entered between them, respondent No.2 does not

want to pursue this case any further and has no objection, if

the present FIR be quashed.

4. Ms.Sapna Parmar, D/o Shri Kashmir Singh Chauhan is

present in person with her counsel Mr.T.C. Sharma, Advocate

who has duly identified her.

5. On instructions, learned counsel for respondent No.2

submits that out of the total amount i.e. `7,35,000/-,

`4,85,000/- has already been received by respondent No.2.

6. Today, the remaining amount of `2,50,000/- is being

handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court vide pay order

dated 31st October, 2011 bearing no.020296 in the name of

Ms. Sapna Parmar drawn on State Bank of Mysore.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that she

has no objection if FIR No. 538/2006 is quashed.

8. In the interest of justice, I quash FIR No.538/2006

registered under Sections 498A/406 Indian Penal Code 1860

at PS Sarojni Nagar against the petitioners on the complaint

of respondent No.2, and proceedings emanating thereto.

9. Learned APP for the State submits that, while quashing

the FIR a heavy cost should be imposed against the

petitioners as Government machinery has been used and

precious time of the Court has been consumed.

10. Accordingly, I impose cost of `20,000/- each on

petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 to be paid in favour of

Superintendent, Nirmal Chhaya, Jail Road, Tihar, New Delhi

within two weeks from today. Proof of the same shall also be

placed on record. I defer from imposing cost on petitioner

No.3, as she is a non-earning member in the family.

11. Accordingly, Crl.M.C.No.2606/2011 stands allowed and

disposed of in above terms.

SURESH KAIT, J

November 01 2011 AK