Delhi High Court
Firasat & Ors vs State & Anr on 7 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.457/2012
% Judgment delivered on:07th February, 2012
FIRASAT & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Javed Khan, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the
State
Mr. D.K. Singh, Adv.for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. 1585/2012
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C.457/2012
1. Notice.
2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
3. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. D.K. Singh accepts notice
on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final
hearing.
5. Vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash
FIR No. 103/2009 registered at PS Welcome, Delhi under Section
406/498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3&4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the proceedings pending before the
trial court.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the
pendency of the case before the trial court, the respondent No.2 has
amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR with the
petitioners vide MOU dated 25.01.2012.
7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitts that it
was agreed in the aforesaid MOU that the petitioner No.1 (husband)
shall pay Rs.90,000/- towards full and final settlement. The petitioner
No.1 has paid the said amount to the respondent No.2. However, the
petitioner No.1 has come forward to pay Rs.1,000/- p.m. for bringing
up of his son Mohd. Mouz, aged 4 years. It is further submitted that
the respondent no.2 is no more interested to pursue the aforesaid FIR.
Therefore, the FIR mentioned above and the proceedings before the
trial court be quashed.
8. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court with her
counsel Mr. D.K. Singh.
9. On instructions, ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 has
submitted that since the matter has been settled amicably vide the
aforesaid MOU dated 25.01.2012 and the petitioner No.1 has further
agreed to pay Rs.1,000/- p.m. in favour of his son, therefore, she is no
more interested in pursing the instant case and has no objection if the
above mentioned FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed.
10. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that the State has already
filed the charge sheet and the charges are yet to be framed. She has
prayed that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs
should be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery
has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed.
11. I find force in the submissions of ld. APP for the State.
Therefore, I direct the petitioners No.1, 4 and 5 to pay Rs.5,000/- each
to be paid within six weeks from today in favour of Mohd. Mouz, son
of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2.
12. I, therefore, direct respondent No.2 to keep the aforesaid amount
of Rs.15,000/- in the form of FDR initially for five years, to be
renewed periodically, and the maturity amount shall be utilised for the
welfare of the child Md. Mouz.
13. Keeping in view the above discussion and the statement of
respondent No.2, in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 103/2009
registered at PS Welcome, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating
therefrom.
14. Criminal M.C. 457/2012 is allowed.
15. I further make it clear that if the petitioner No.1 fails to pay the
aforesaid amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. even for once, he shall be liable
for contempt proceedings.
16. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 07, 2012
RS
