Satyapal Sharma & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 5583 Del

$~23

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       CRL.M.C. 3788/2011

%               Judgment delivered on:18th November, 2011

        SATYAPAL SHARMA & ORS.                      ..... Petitioner

                               Through : Mr. R.S. Dalal, Adv.
                               and Mr. R.S. Dahiya, Adv.

                      versus

        STATE NCT OF DELHI                         ..... Respondent

                               Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura,
                               Ld. APP for State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

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



SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Notice issued.

2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submit that vide FIR No. 41 dated 14.02.2011 under Section 498A has been registered against the

petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6 on the complaint of petitioner No. 7 / Smt. Rekha, wife of Late Surinder Kumar (mother of petitioner no. 5).

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further submit that vide MOU dated 09.03.2011 petitioner no. 7 has settled all issues qua petitioners no. 1, 2, 4 & 6 qua aforesaid FIR. He further submits that petitioner No. 7 does not want to pursue the case any further.

5. Petitioner no. 7 Smt. Rekha, wife of Late Surinder Kumar, who is the complainant in the present case is person and submits that since she has no complaint against the petitioners, she does not want to pursue the case any further and she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

6. Keeping in view the MOU dated 09.03.2011 and the submission of petitioner No.7, I deem it appropriate to quash the FIR.

7. Ordered accordingly.

8. CRL. M.C. 3788/2011 is disposed of.

9. As petitioner no. 7 has reconciled her issues and is staying with family, therefore, I refrain from imposing any cost on the petitioners.

10. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

NOVEMBER 18, 2011 jg