Delhi High Court
Rajinder Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr on 24 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.675/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 24th February, 2012
RAJINDER KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Devanand Rai, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
Dr. Dayanand, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. No.2377-78/2012
Exemptions are allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.As. stand disposed of.
+ CRL.M.C. 675/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP on behalf of respondent
No.1/State and Mr.Dayanand, learned counsel on behalf of R-2 accept
notice.
3. With the consent of the parties, the instant petition is taken up
for disposal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that vide FIR
No.340/2001 dated 01.05.2001 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC has
been registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent
No.2 at P.S.Dabri,
5. He further submitted that thereafter respondent No.2 has settled
all the issued qua aforesaid FIR with the petitioners, therefore she is no
more interested in pursue the case anymore. Moreover, the marriage
between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has already been
dissolved by mutual consent vide divorce decree dated 22.10.2011.
Therefore, the instant petition be allowed and FIR mentioned above
with emanate proceeding thereto may be quashed.
6. Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court with her counsel,
Mr.Dayanand, who has identified her as Ms. Kiran, d/o.Sh. Yaad Ram,
R/o. RZ-26/P-9, Indra Park, Sagar Pur, New Delhil.
7. On instruction, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
submitted that in pursuance of the settlement, marriage between
respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 has been resolved as mentioned
above. It is further submitted the respondent No.2 has received the
entire settlement amount from the petitioner No.1, therefore, she is no
more interested in pursue the matter further and she has no objection, if
the FIR mentioned above is quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the APP on the other hand submits that on
completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before learned
Trial Court and charges have been framed against the petitioners and
the matter is pending for prosecution evidence.
9. She further submitted that if the Court is inclined to quash the
FIR, then heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners, as the
government machinery has been pressed into and precious public time
of the Courts have been consumed.
10. Keeping in view the settlement between the parties, statement
made by the respondent No.2 , and the fact that marriage between
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has since been dissolved vide
divorce decree dated 22.10.2011, in the interest of justice, FIR
No.340/2001 registered against the petitioners at P.S. Dabri, with
emanating proceedings thereto are hereby quashed.
11. Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP for State
regarding putting the petitioners to terms, however, considering their
financial status, I am not inclined to impose any costs upon them.
12. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.675/2012 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
13. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2012
RB
