Urvashi Beri @ Ushi & Anr vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 801 Del

$~28
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+        CRL.M.C. 428/2012

%               Judgment delivered on: 6th February, 2012


         URVASHI BERI @ USHI & ANR                  ..... Petitioner
                       Through : Ms. Sushma Sharma, Adv.

                        versus


         STATE                      ..... Respondent
                                 Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT


SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1        Notice issued.

2        Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State.

3        With the consent of both the parties, the instant petition is taken
up today for final disposal.

4        Learned counsels for both the parties jointly stated that vide FIR

No. 360/2006, a case under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against petitioner No.1 (sister-in-law), Ms. Veena Mehta (mother-in-

law) and Ravi Mehta(husband) on the complaint of petitioner No.2/complainant.

5 Learned counsel further submits as Mr. Ravi Mehta(husband), is concerned, the police has not charge-sheeted him and shown him in Column No. 12 (Old Column No.2)

6 FIR and proceedings against Veena Mehta (mother-in-law) has been quashed vide Writ Petition Criminal 2416/2006 by this court vide an order dated 28.11.2007.

7 Further submits that Criminal M.C. 358/2008 filed by petitioner No.1 for quashing of the aforesaid FIR was dismissed on merit by this Court vide its order dated 25.02.2009.

8 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner No.2/ complainant has resolved all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and is living with her husband w.e.f. March, 2011 and since then she is living her married life happily and has no grievances with her in-laws. The petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law of petitioner No.2/complainant, therefore, she has no objection if the FIR mentioned above, is quashed.

9 Both the petitioners are personally present in the court today and are duly identified by their counsel, Ms. Sushma Sharma, Advocate. The submissions made by learned counsel have not been rebutted by the petitioners.

10 Learned APP for State submits that the State has filed the Charge-sheet and charges are yet to be framed.

11 Learned APP further submits that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR in the present case, then heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioners as in the process, Government Machinery has been pressed into and precious time of the court has been consumed.

12 Though I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State but keeping in view the fact that the petitioner No.2/complainant is residing happily in her matrimonial home with her husband, I refrain in imposing costs upon petitioner No.1.

13 Accordingly, I quash the FIR No. 360/2006 registered at P.S. Najafgarh, New Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

14    Criminal M.C. 428/2012 is allowed.

15    Dasti.




                                      SURESH KAIT, J


FEBRUARY 06, 2012
j