Delhi High Court
Hemant Kumar & Ors vs State & Ors. on 3 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.No.222/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 03rd February, 2012
HEMANT KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.V.K. Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Satish Mishra, Adv for
Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State/R-1.
Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv for R-2 with
respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for parties have jointly stated that vide FIR
No.136/2010 dated 06.05.2010 case under Section 498A/406/34 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners at police
station Seemapuri, Delhi on complaint of respondent No.2.
2. It is further submitted that vide compromise deed dated
06.07.2010, respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua
aforementioned FIR and she is no more interested to pursue her case
against the petitioners. Consequent to said compromise, marriage
between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had also been
dissolved by mutual consent, vide divorce decree dated 25.08.2011.
3. Learned counsel for parties further jointly submitted that
petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay ` 8.00Lacs to respondent No.2. Out
of which an amount of ` 6.40Lacs had already been paid to respondent
No.2. Today an amount of ` 1.60 Lacs - vide two draft Nos.014353
and 014354 for ` 1.00 Lacs & ` 0.60 Lac respectively both dated
19.01.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank in favour of respondent No.2 - has
been paid to her, in the Court, which has been accepted by her without
any protest.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court with her learned counsel
Mr.Sunil Kumar, who duly identifies her. In addition, she has
produced her driving licence bearing No.P05122005299848 issued by
Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi on 24.012.2005 in her name.
Original seen & returned to her. She has not rebutted as to what has
been submitted by learned counsel for parties.
5. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions
submits that she has settled all the issues with the petitioners qua
aforementioned FIR and if the same is quashed, she has no objection
thereto.
6. On the other hand, Mr.Satish Mishra, learned counsel on behalf
of Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State, on instructions submits
that consequent to settlement between the parties, charge-sheet has not
been prepared due to the fact that the parties arrived on settlement.
7. Further he submits that if this Court is inclined to quash the
aforementioned FIR, petitioners may be put to some terms, as in this
process, government machinery has been pressed into and precious
public time has been consumed.
8. Keeping the above discussion into view and the facts that
marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had already been
dissolved and she is no more interested in pursuing her case, in the
interest of justice, FIR No.136/2010 registered against the petitioners at
police station Seemapuri, Delhi is hereby quashed.
9. Though, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for
State, regarding putting the petitioners to terms, however, as petitioners
are from lower strata of society, I refrain in imposing any costs upon
them.
10. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.222/2012 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
11. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 03, 2012
Mk
