Delhi High Court
Pankaj Gautam & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 15 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2133/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 15th February, 2012
PANKAJ GAUTAM & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Narender Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State.
ASI Pritam Singh, PS-Sangam Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition was initially taken up on 29.08.2011 and the
following order was passed by this Court:-
"1. Vide FIR No.895/2005 a case under Section
498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against the
petitioner No.1, the husband and petitioner Nos.2 to 5, the
relatives of petitioner No.1 at police station, Sangam Vihar.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that vide a
compromise deed dated 16.11.2010, compromise has
already effected between respondent No.2 and petitioner
No.1.
3. As per the settlement, petitioner No.1 has agreed to
pay a sum of Rs. 5.00lacs in lieu of maintenance, istridhan
and permanent alimony. Out of which, Rs. 3.00lacs has
already been paid to respondent No.2.
4. Respondent No.2/Ms.Sheetal Kaim is present in
person with learned counsel and submits that an amount of
Rs. 3.00lacs has already been received.
5. As per the settlement, amount of Rs. 2.00lacs was paid
at the time of first motion of divorce by mutual consent and
Rs. 1.00lac was to be paid at the time of quashing of the
FIR in question and remaining amount of Rs. 2.00lacs was
to be paid at the time of second motion of the petition for
divorce by mutual consent.
6. At this stage, when the second motion of divorce for
mutual consent is pending, I am not inclined to quash the
FIR in question.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the
amount of Rs. 1.00lac received shall be adjusted at the time
of second motion petition."
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 2 has
received the entire amount from the petitioner no. 1 and thereafter vide
decree of divorce dated 06.01.2012, marriage between petitioner no. 1
and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved by mutual consent. Therefore,
FIR no. 895/2005 registered at PS-Sangam Vihar may be quashed with
emanating proceedings thereto.
3. Copy of Decree of Divorce dated 06.01.2012 is taken on record.
4. Respondent no.2 is personally present in the Court and in
support of her identity, she has produced Voter I-Card bearing no.
HZT13777078 issued by Election Commission of India which stands
in her name.
5. He has further admitted that as per the settlement, she has
received the entire settlement amount and her marriage with petitioner
no. 1 has been dissolved vide Decree of Divorce dated 06.01.2012,
therefore she is no more interested to pursue the case further and if the
FIR referred above is quashed she has no objection.
6. On the other hand, ld.APP submits that after investigation State
has filed the chargesheet, charges have been framed and the case is
pending for Prosecution Evidence.
7. She further submits that in this process, Govt. machinery has
been pressed into and precious time of the Court has been consumed.
Therefore, if this court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs be
imposed on the petitioners.
8. Keeping the statement of respondent no.2 and the Decree of
Divorce dated 06.01.2012, in the interest of justice I quash the FIR no.
895/2005 registered at PS-Sangam Vihar.
9. Though I find force in the submission of ld. APP, however
keeping the financial position of the petitioners into view, I refrain in
imposing cost upon the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 2133/2011 is allowed.
11. Since the main petition is allowed, Crl. M.A. 7759/2011(Stay)
has become infructuous and disposed of as such.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 15, 2012
jg
