Delhi High Court
Amit Sundra & Ors vs State & Anr on 21 October, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.No.3524/2011
% Judgment delivered on:21st October, 2011
AMIT SUNDRA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms.Jhum Jhum Sarkar &
Mr.Abhishek AGgarwal, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State.
Mr.Varun Jain, 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)
Crl.M.A.No.12506/2011(exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C.No.3524/2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide
FIR No.97/2006 dated 17.03.2006, 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 C. R. Park, New Delhi.
2. Further submits that good senses prevail between the
parties and vide MOU dated 05.04.2011, all the issues qua
the present FIR has been dissolved.
3. Ms.Sheetal Khanna, respondent No.2 is present in
person with her learned counsel Mr.Varun Jain, Advocate who
has duly identified her.
4. On instructions, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that she has settled all the issues qua the present
FIR and she does not wish to pursue the same. Respondent
No.2 has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
5. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State in the present
case, submits that the FIR was registered way back in the
year 2006 and since then the government force has been
used and the precious time of the Courts has been
consumed. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has
since been filed, however, charge yet to be framed against
the petitioners. If this Court is inclined to quash the present
FIR, costs should be imposed upon the petitioners.
6. I find force in the submission of learned APP. As per
the MOU, the petitioners have agreed to pay more than
`1.00 crore and respondent No.2 is happy to receive the
same without any dispute. The said amount shall be given
at the time of recording statement of respondent No.2 i.e. at
the time of recording second motion statement in the
petition for divorce by mutual consent.
7. In view of above, as per the terms and conditions of
MOU dated 05.04.2011, FIR No.97/2006, under Section 498A/
406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against the
petitioners at police station C. R. Park, New Delhi and
emanating proceedings, if any, are quashed.
8. Further, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate
to impose a costs of `1.00lac upon the petitioners to be paid
in favour of Principal, Senior Secondary School for Blind
Boys, Sewa Kutir, BBM Depot Road, Kingsway Camp, Delhi
within two weeks from today and proof thereof shall be
placed on the record by petitioners.
9. The Principal of said school is directed to initially keep
this amount in FDR for a period of three years. The interest
accrued thereon shall be utilised for the well being of the
needy children of the school. The said FDR shall be got
renewed periodically.
10. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3524/2011 is allowed and
disposed of in above terms.
11. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
October 21st 2011
Mk
