Nishar Khan vs State & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 4848 Del

$~26

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              CRL.M.C. 3260/2011

%              Judgment delivered on:28th September,2011

        NISHAR KHAN                               ..... Petitioners
                             Through : Mr. Tanveer A. Khan, Adv.

                       versus

        STATE & ANR.                               ..... Respondents
                             Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
                             State
                             Mr. Anil Hooda, Adv. for R-2


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. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR

No.113 dated 13.05.2008 under Section 498A/406/34 Indian

Penal Code was registered against the petitioners on the

complaint of respondent No.2 at PS Jamia Nagar.

2. Further submits that vide settlement dated 29.07.2011

respondent No.2 has already compromised the matter with the

petitioners.

3. As per the settlement ì.70,000/- was to be paid to the

respondent No.2.

4. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and

she is identified by her counsel.

5. Respondent No.2 submits that she has received ì.70,000/-.

She further states that she does not want to pursue the case

further and has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

6. Keeping in view the settlement dated 29.07.2011 and

statement of respondent No.2, I quash FIR No.113 dated

13.05.2008 under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code

registered against the petitioners on the complaint of

respondent No.2 at PS Jamia Nagar

6. Ld. APP submits that charge-sheet has already been filed

and the case is pending before the prosecution evidence. She

also submits that while quashing the FIR heavy cost be imposed

on the petitioners.

7. Though I find force in the submission of ld. APP but

keeping in view the financial position of the petitioners, I refrain

from imposing cost on the petitioners.

8. CRL.M.C. 3260/2011 is allowed.

9. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

September 28, 2011 Vld