Delhi High Court
Ashiem Berry & Ors vs State & Anr on 21 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 93/2012
% Judgment delivered on:21st February, 2012
ASHIEM BERRY & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ajit Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State.
Respondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR no. 491
dated 20.07.2004 case under Section 498A/406/506/323/34 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the
complaint of respondent no. 2 at Police Station - Ashok Vihar.
2. It is further submitted that a settlement arrived between the
parties. Pursuance to the said settlement, marriage between petitioner
no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved by mutual consent vide
decree of divorce dated 13.04.2011. A joint statement of petitioner no.
1 and respondent no. 2 was recorded, whereby petitioner no. 1 agreed
to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as full and final settlement.
3. It is further submitted that as per the settlement dated,
13.04.2011, respondent no. 2 has already received an amount of
Rs.3 Lacs. It is pertinent to note that a DD of Rs.1.5 Lacs is placed in
the judicial file of the trial court. It is further submitted that if the said
amount is released in favour of respondent no.2, they have no
objection.
4. Respondent no. 2 is present in person, who has been identified
by SI Rohit, PS-Ashok Vihar. She submits that she has settled all the
issues qua the aforesaid FIR and as per the settlement, she has received
a sum of Rs.3 Lacs and Rs.1.5 Lacs remains to be unpaid. She has
further stated that she has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR
against the petitioner without any coercion and pressure and she has no
objection if the FIR referred above is quashed.
5. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that charge-sheet has already
been filed, charges have been framed and the matter is fixed for
Prosecution Evidence. She further submits that if the Court is inclined
to quash the FIR, heavy costs be imposed on the petitioners, as in this
process, government machinery has been pressed into and precious
public time has been consumed.
6. Keeping the joint Statement of petitioner no. 1 and respondent
no.2, dissolution of marriage dated 13.04.2011 and the statement of
respondent no. 2 into view, as she has settled all the issues qua the
aforesaid FIR and has no objections if the FIR is quashed, in the
interest of justice, I quash FIR no. 491 dated 20.07.2004 registered at
PS-Ashok Vihar with emanating proceedings thereto.
7. In these circumstances, Trial Court is directed to release DD of
Rs.1.5 Lacs, which is lying in the judicial file in favour of respondent
no. 2.
8. However, I find force in the submission of ld. APP as in this
process, government machinery has been pressed into and previous
public time has been consumed, therefore I impose a cost of
Rs.50,000/- on petitioner no.1 to be deposited in favour of "Indigent
and Lawyers Account" Bar Council of Delhi within 2 weeks from
today under intimation to concerned SHO, Proof thereof shall be
placed on record. SHO concerned shall ensure the timely deposition of
cost.
9. However, I refrain in imposing cost on petitioner no.2, who is a
retired person and petitioner no. 3, 4 & 5, being the relatives of
petitioner no.1.
10. Crl. M.C. 93/2012 is allowed on the above terms.
11. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 21, 2012
jg
