Delhi High Court
Nasiruddin vs State & Anr. on 23 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 279/2012
% Judgment delivered on:23rd February, 2012
NASIRUDDIN ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Sambul Nizam, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for
State/R1.
Mr. Khursheed Anward, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide order dated 24.01.2012, this Court has passed the following
order.
1. Learned counsels for parties jointly stated that vide FIR
No.337/2005 dated 25.08.2005 a case under Section
498A/406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against
petitioner at police station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi on the
complaint of respondent No.2.
2. They further informed this Court petitioner and respondent
No.2 have decided to live together as husband and wife,
therefore, respondent No.2 is not interested in further
pursuing her case against petitioner and if the aforementioned
FIR is quashed, she has no objection.
3. This Court specifically inquired from the petitioner and
respondent No.2 to this effect. Initially, respondent No.2
stated that no such arrangement has been made to live
together. However, thereafter, she stated that they have
decided to live together.
4. Petitioner No.2 has also been inquired about the same
arrangement. He has also given more or less similar answer.
5. Therefore, it is not clear as to whether they have decided to
live together or they have just made submissions.
6. In the circumstances, for the satisfaction, at least one month
time be afforded to the parties to reunite their alliance.
7. As expressed by the petitioner and respondent No.2, they shall
join their alliance as husband and wife and they have decided
to go from the Court itself.
2. Ld. Counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the petitioner
and respondent no. 2 have decided to live separately as there are no chances
of living together.
3. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court with her Counsel
and she is identified by SI Ramphal, PS-Sarai Rohilla.
4. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 on instruction has submitted that
respondent no. 2 is happy in living separately and she does not want to stay
with petitioner.
5. It is further submitted that she has settled all the issues qua the
aforesaid FIR, therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the case further
and if the FIR referred above is quashed, she has no objection.
6. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that charge-sheet has been filed,
charges have been framed against the petitioner and the case is pending for
Prosecution Evidence. He has further submitted that if this Court is inclined
to quash the FIR referred above, heavy costs be imposed on the petitioner as
in this process Govt. machinery has been pressed into and precious public
time has been consumed.
7. Keeping in view the order dated 24.01.2012 and the statement of
respondent no. 2 who is no more interested to pursue the case further, FIR
no. 337/2005 registered at PS-Sarai Rohilla is hereby quashed with
emanating proceedings thereto.
8. Though, I find force in the submission of ld. APP on cost, however,
keeping the financial position of the petitioner into view, I refrain in
imposing costs on the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 279/2012 is allowed.
10. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2012
jg
