Neeraj Gupta & Ors vs State & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 1026 Del

$~4
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+     CRL.M.C. 2976/2011

%            Judgment delivered on:14th February, 2012


      NEERAJ GUPTA & ORS                ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Adv.

                     versus


      STATE & ANR                        ..... Respondent
                              Through : Mr.Rajdipa Behura, APP.
                              Mr. Ajay Khatana, Adv. for R2.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CRL. M.C. 2976/2011

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.277 dated 29.10.2009, a case under Sections 406/498 A/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2/complainant at P.S. Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.

2. Further submits that vide settlement dated 01.05.2010, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

3. Respondent No.2/Smt. Priyanka Gupta @ Bhawna is personally

present in the court. She has been duly identified by IO/SI Ram Kishan.

4. It is submitted that vide above-mentioned settlement, the petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.7lacs to respondent No. 2 in the following manner:-

(i) Rs.1 lac at the time of granting bail.

(ii) Rs.2 lacs at the time of recording of statement in first motion.

(iii) Rs.2 lacs at the time of recording of statement in second motion.

(iv) Rs.2 lacs at the time of recording of quashing of FIR.

5. Out of the total settlement amount of Rs.7lacs, Rs.5 lacs has already been received by respondent No.2. The petitioner No.1 has handed over a Bankers Cheque No. 074289 dated 13.02.2010 drawn on Citizen Co-operative Bank limited, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi for the remaining settlement amount of Rs.2 lacs. The same has been accepted by respondent No.2 without protest.

6. Further submits that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has already been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 20.01.2011.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant on instructions submits that respondent No.2 is not interested to pursue the case further in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. She has no objection if the FIR mentioned above, is quashed.

8. Learned APP on the other hand submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial court and Charges are yet to be framed.

9. He further submits that in the process Government Machinery

has been mis-used and precious time of the court has been consumed, therefore, if this court is inclined to quash the FIR in the present case, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioner No.1/accused.

10. I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State. Therefore, while allowing the petition, I impose a costs of Rs.1lacs to be deposited in favour of Delhi Police Welfare Fund, PHQ, I.P. Estate, Delhi within a period of 04 weeks from today. Proof thereof shall be placed on record under intimation to SHO/IO concerned.

11. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties, and statement of respondent No.2 and decree of divorce dated 20.01.2011 and in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No. 277/2009 registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

12. The SHO/IO concerned shall ensure timely costs deposition by petitioner, as directed above.

13. Criminal M.C. 2976/2011 is allowed.

14. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

FEBRUARY 14, 2012 j