Raghunath & Ors vs State & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 4949 Del

$~3
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              CRL.M.C.No.3127/2011

%              Judgment delivered on:03rd October,2011

RAGHUNATH & ORS                                       ..... Petitioner
                                 Through : Mr.Mahesh Saxena, Adv.

                       versus

STATE & ANR                                           ..... Respondent
                                 Through: Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP for State.
                                 Mr.Daljeet Dhiman, Adv for R-2 with
                                 respondent No.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                      No.
        in the Digest?

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide

FIR No.372/2004 dated 01.11.2004 a case under Section

498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against

the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police

station Farsh Bazar, Delhi.

2. Further submits that vide a decree of divorce dated

22.07.2005 marriage between petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.2 has already been dissolved and settlement

has already been arrived at between the parties, therefore,

respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue her case any

further.

3. Respondent No.1 Ms.Ritu present with her learned

counsel Mr.Daljeet Dhiman, who has duly identified her as

Ms.Ritu d/o Shri Ram Kishore. Learned counsel, on

instruction, further submits that she does not wish to pursue

her case against the petitioners qua the aforesaid FIR and

the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2

has already been dissolved.

4. Ms.Ritu Gauba, learned APP for State submits that

subsequent to framing of the charge, matter is pending for

completion of prosecution evidence. She further submits that

if the Court is inclined to quash the present FIR, heavy costs

should be imposed upon the petitioners.

5. Keeping the settlement between the parties and the

fact that marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent

No.2 has already been dissolved, respondent No.2 does not

wish to continue her case against the petitioners, FIR

No.372/2004 under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code,

1860 registered against the petitioners at police station

Farsh Bazar, Delhi and emanating proceedings thereto are

hereby quashed.

6. Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP

for State, however, keeping the financial position of

petitioners, I defer in imposing any costs upon them.

7. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3127/2011 stands allowed

in above terms.

SURESH KAIT, J

October 03rd 2011 Mk