Delhi High Court
Anita & Ors vs State on 16 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 253/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 16th February, 2012
ANITA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kapil Anand, Advocate for
P-1
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate for
P-2 and P-3
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State along with SI Ram
Narayan, P.S.Nabi Karim
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.
216 dated 27.05.2007, case under Sections 498-A/406/34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Nabi Karim, New Delhi against the
petitioner No.2, husband, Jeetu and mother in law of Petitioner No.1,
Shanti Devi, on the complaint of petitioner No.1, Anita.
2. Further submits that Shanti Devi, mother in law of petitioner
No.1 was died on 23.09.2010.
3. All the petitioners are present in the Court today and they have
been identified by SI Ram Narayan, P.S.Nabi Karim.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
matter has amicably been settled vide settlement dated 08.06.2010
arrived at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Petitioner No.1
has settled all her claims for a total sum of `3,50,000/-. It is further
submitted that consequent to the said settlement marriage between the
petitioners No.1 and 2 has already been dissolved vide decree of
divorce dated 21.03.2011 by mutual consent.
5. It is further submitted that out of settlement amount of
`3,50,000/- the petitioner No.2 has paid a sum of `2,50,000/- to the
petitioner No.1 during the time of first and second motion. Petitioner
No.2 hands over `1lac by way of a Draft No. 330580 dated 01.02.2012
drawn on Dena Bank, Faridabad Branch for the remaining settlement
amount to Petitioner No.1, today in the court itself which she has
accepted without any protest.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.1/complainant does
not wish to pursue the case as she has received the settlement amount
`3,50,000/-.
7. The instant petition has been jointly filed by petitioner No.1
/complainant, petitioners No. 2 and 3/accused for quashing of the FIR
and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
8. Learned APP for the State on instruction of SI Ram Narayan,
P.S.Nabi Karim has submitted that after investigation, charge-sheet has
been filed and charges have been framed against the petitioners No. 2
and 3. She further submits that in this process Government machinery
has been misused and precious time of the Court has been consumed.
If this court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs should be
imposed upon petitioners No. 2 and 3.
9. Keeping in view of the settlement mentioned above and decree
of divorce dated 21.03.2011 and contents in the petition as the
petitioner No.1 is the complainant has settled all the dispute, therefore,
in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No. 216 dated 27.05.2007
registered at P.S. Nabi Karim and all the proceedings emanating
therefrom.
10. Though, I find force in the submissions of ld. APP on costs,
however, keeping the financial position of the petitioners, I refrain on
imposing costs on them.
11. Criminal M.C. 253/2012 is disposed of.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 16, 2012
b
