Delhi High Court
Narender Kumar Khurana vs Sangita & Anr. on 3 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 395/2012
NARENDER KUMAR KHURANA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ankit Jain, Adv.
versus
SANGITA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Adv. for
R1 with Respondent No.1 in person.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP for State/R2
with IO/SI Dharamender.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.C. 395/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.1
3. Learned APP for State accepts notice on behalf of
State/respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the parties submits that vide FIR No. 23
dated 19.01.2011, a case under Sections 498 A/406/34 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of
respondent No.1 at P.S. Burari, Delhi.
5. Further submits that the matter has been amicably compromised
vide Settlement dated 05.02.2011 before Judge-I/Family
court/Rohini/Delhi. Pursuant thereto, the marriage between petitioner
and respondent No. 1 has been dissolved by way of decree of divorce
by mutual consent dated 03.11.2011.
6. Respondent No.1, who is personally present in the court today
has been duly identified by IO/SI Dharmender, Nagar, Delhi. She
submits that consequent to settlement dated 05.02.2011, the marriage
between petitioner and respondent No.1 has been dissolved vide decree
of divorce dated 03.11.2011.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent
No.1 has received all the settlement amount from the petitioner
including remaining Rs.35,000/- has been handed over to respondent
No.1 by way of Demand Draft No. 298785 drawn on P.N.B., Sant
Nirankari Colony, Delhi-110009 dated 08.10.2011 in favour of
respondent No.1, which she has accepted without protest.
8. Learned APP for State submits that since the settlement had
been arrived at between the parties, the police has not filed Charge-
sheet in the matter.
9. Further submits that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR in
the present case, then heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioner
as in the process, Government Machinery has been used and precious
time of the court has been consumed.
10. I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State.
The petitioner is running a business of Garments and having a shop in
main Market in Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi. He seems to be a man of
means. I impose a costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid in favour of 'Delhi
Police Welfare Fund', PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi within a period of
02 weeks from today under intimation to the IO/SHO concerned.
11. The IO concerned/SHO P.S. Burari, Delhi shall ensure the
timely deposition of the costs by the petitioner.
12. Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of respondent
No.1 into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 23/2011
registered at P.S. Burari, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating
therefrom.
13. Criminal M.C. 395/2012 is disposed of.
14. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 03, 2012/j/RS
