Delhi High Court
Anil Sakkarwal & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 29 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 209/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 29th February, 2012
ANIL SAKKARWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
& ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State.
SI Anil Malik, PS-Shalimar Bagh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR no.375
dated 21.12.2009, case under Section 406/498A Indian Penal Code,
1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of
respondent no. 2 at PS-Shalimar Bagh.
2. It is further submitted that Petitioners and respondent no. 2
entered into a settlement and respondent no. 2 has settled all the issues
qua the aforesaid FIR against all the petitioners.
3. Consequent to the settlement, a joint statement got recorded by
petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 before the Addl. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Rohini on 19.09.2011, whereby it is stated that
petitioner no.1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to respondent
No.2 (over and above a sum of Rs.98,000/- given by petitioner no. 1 to
respondent no. 2 during the arguments on anticipatory bail application
before the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.)
4. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 has paid the entire
amount to respondent no. 2, Rs.4 Lacs were given paid out of the said
settlement amount and Rs.1.50 Lacs has been paid to her today in the
Court by way of Banker's Cheque issued by State Bank of India
bearing no. 598720 dated 16.01.2012.
5. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in court with her father
namely Mr. Sohan Lal. SI Anil Kumar, IO of the case identified her as
Smt. Sarika, complainant in the case.
6. Respondent no. 2 has submitted that she has settled all the issues
qua the aforesaid FIR and received the entire amount as settled out of
Court. She further submits that consequent to the settlement mentioned
above, marriage between her and petitioner no. 1 was dissolved by
mutual consent vide Decree of Divorce dated 19.09.2011, therefore,
she is no more interested to pursue the case further. If the FIR referred
above is quashed, she has no objection.
7. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that after investigation,
chargesheet has been filed by the State. However, charges are yet to be
framed. He further submits that if this Court is inclined to quash the
FIR referred above, heavy costs be imposed upon the petitioner as in
this process, Govt. machinery has been pressed into and precious
public time has been consumed.
8. Keeping the joint statement dated 19.09.2011 made before Addl.
Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini, Statement of respondent no. 2
in this court as she is not further interested to pursue the case, Decree
of Divorce dated 19.09.2011 and, in the interest of justice, FIR no.375
dated 21.12.2009 registered at PS-Shalimar Bagh is hereby quashed
with emanating proceedings thereto.
9. Though, I find force in the submission of ld. APP on costs,
however, keeping in view the financial position of the petitioners, I
refrain from imposing costs upon them.
10. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 209/2012 is allowed.
11. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
Jg
