Ranjeet Lal & Ors. vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1326 Del

$~34
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             CRL.M.C. No. 101/2012

%             Judgment delivered on: 27th February, 2012

      RANJEET LAL & ORS.                        ..... Petitioner
                    Through : Mr. Nishant Shaina, Adv.

                     versus

      STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF
      DELHI & ANR.                          ..... Respondents
                    Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
                              Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv for R-2.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR no.373/2010 dated 26.10.2010 case u/s 406/498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners at PS Vijay Vihar on the complaint of respondent no. 2.

2. It is further submitted that thereafter respondent no. 2 amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and consequent to the settlement, marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved by mutual consent vide decree of divorce dated 08.09.2011.

3. Respondent no. 2 is present in the court and has been identified

by her counsel and submits that the matter has been amicably settled. Respondent no. 2 has received entire settlement amount and marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved by divorce decree dated 08.09.2011. She has no objection if the FIR mentioned above is quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned APP submits that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy cost should be imposed upon the petitioners, as in this process government machinery has been pressed into and precious time of the court has been consumed.

5. Keeping the settlement into view, statement of respondent no.2, dissolution of marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 by decree of divorce dated 08.09.2011 and in the interest of justice, FIR no.373/2010 registered against the petitioners at PS Vijay Vihar, Delhi is quashed with emanating proceedings thereto.

6. Though, I found force in the submission made by learned APP but keeping the financial position of the petitioners into view, I refrain from imposing cost on them.

7. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 101/2012 is allowed.

8. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J FEBRUARY 27, 2012 Ac/jg