Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr on 14 October, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3431/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 14th October, 2011.
LALIT KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. L.K. Singh, Adv.
Petitioners in persons.
Versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for
State along with IO/ASI Sukhbir Singh.
Mr. Sushil Bali, Adv. for
complainant/R2.
R2 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)
CRL. M.A. 12176/2011 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 3431/2011
1 Notice issued.
2 Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP accepts notice on behalf
of respondent No. 1/State.
3 Mr. Sushil Bali, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No. 2/complainant.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide
FIR No. 1133/2005, a case under Sections 498A/406/34
Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the
petitioners at P.S. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on the
complaint of complainant/Respondent No. 2.
5 Further submits that the parties have amicably settled
the matter for a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. Out of the total
settled amount, an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- has already
been paid by the petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2.
6 Respondent No. 2/complainant/Ms. Anita is personally
present in the court today. She has been duly identified by
the IO/ASI Sukhbir Singh and her counsel, Mr. Sushil Bali,
Advocate.
7 Respondent No.2/complainant submits that she has
settled all her disputes qua the aforesaid FIR with the
petitioners vide compromise dated 05.03.2011.
8 Petitioner No. 1 is personally present in the court
today. For balance payment, he hands over a Demand Draft
No.759090 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- drawn on Indian Bank,
Preet Vihar, dated 13.09.2011 to respondent No.
2/complainant.
9 Respondent No.2/complainant accepts the same
without protest.
10 Respondent No. 2/complainant submits that all her
claims for maintenance/alimony etc. stands satisfied and she
does not want to pursue the case further and she has no
objection if the above mentioned FIR is quashed.
11 Learned APP for State submits that the matter is at the
stage of recording of Prosecution Evidence after framing of
Charge in the trial court.
13 She further submits that the precious time of the court
as well as the Government Machinery has been misused and
therefore, heavy costs should be imposed upon the
petitioners before quashing the FIR.
14 I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for
State.
15 In the facts and circumstances and in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the
statement made by the respondent No. 2 in the court today,
in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No.
1133/2005,under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code,
1860, registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom.
16 A cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed upon petitioner No.
1/husband, who is running a Confectionary shop and a cost
of Rs.10,000/- is imposed upon petitioner No.4/sister-in-law,
who is working as Stenographer in District Courts. The costs
shall be deposited in favour of "Welfare Fund for Children
and Destitute Women', Department of Women and Child
Development, 1 Canning Lane, K.G. Marg, New Delhi. This
amount shall be utilised for the welfare of inmates of
Ashiana Children Home for Boys-II, Alipur, Delhi-36. Proof of
payment of costs shall be placed on record. I refrain
imposing costs upon petitioners No.2 and 3, being senior
citizens.
17 Criminal M.C. 3431/2011 is allowed and disposed of in
the above terms.
18 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
OCTOBER 14, 2011
j/RS
