Delhi High Court
Vinay Kumar And Ors vs State & Ors on 24 October, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3562/2011
% Judgment delivered on:24th October, 2011
VINAY KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Yudhisthar Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for the
State / R-1.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. for
respondent no. 2.
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)
+ Crl. M.A. 12673/2011 (Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
Crl. M.C. 3562/2011
1. Notice issued.
2. Ld. APP for the State accepts notice on behalf of
respondent no. 1. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 also
accepts notice.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that vide FIR
1373 dated 05.12.2001, case under section 498A/406/Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the Petitioners on
the compliant of respondent no. 2. Thereafter, charge sheet
under section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was
filed.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that
respondent no. 2 has amicably settled the issues qua
aforesaid FIR. In pursuance of the said settlement, the
marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2
has been dissolved vide decree dated 26.09.2011.
5. Further submits that respondent no. 2 does not want to
pursue the case.
6. Respondent no. 2 Ms. Ritu, D/o Subhash Chand
Aggarwal is present personally with her counsel namely Mr.
Vaibhav Sharma, who has identified her as respondent no. 2.
In addition to that she has also produced her voter identity
card no. FYW1020221 issued by Election Commission of
India issued in her name (Original seen and returned).
8. On instructions, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2
submits that as per the agreement petitioner no. 1 has
agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2.75 Lacs to be paid to
respondent no. 2, whereas Rs. 2 Lac has already been paid
and the balance amount is to be paid in the court.
9. Further submits that the said balance amount of
Rs.75,000/- has been handed over to respondent no.2, who
has accepted the same without any protest.
10. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that she is no
more interested in pursuing the case and keeping in view the
settlement and the decree of divorce between her and
petitioner no.1. She has objection if the present FIR is
quashed.
11. Since the marriage has been dissolved between
petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and the matter has
been amicably settled. In the interest of justice, the present
FIR no. 1373/2001 and emanating proceedings thereto are
hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly Crl. M.C. 3562/2011 is allowed.
13. Dasti.
14. Since Crl. M.C. No.3562/2011 is allowed, Crl. M.A.
No.12672/2011 become infructuous and disposed of as such.
SURESH KAIT,J
OCTOBER 24, 2011
jg
