Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar Bansal & Anr vs State & Anr on 8 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~01
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.No.332/2012
% Judgment delivered on:08th February, 2012
VIJAY KUMAR BANSAL & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State /
R-1 with ASI Jagmeshwar Dayal, police
station Crime (Women Cell) in person.
Ms.Deepa Rawat, Adv for R-2 with
respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that vide FIR No.36/2011
dated 07.01.2011 case under Section 498/406/34 Indian Penal Code
was registered against the petitioners on complaint of respondent No.2/
complainant at Police Station Crime (Women) Cell, Nanakpura, New
Delhi.
2. Further submitted that vide settlement deed dated 22.07.2011, all
the issues qua the aforementioned FIR has been resolved between the
parties.
3. As per the settlement, petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay a sum of
` 02.00Lacs and return the household articles to respondent No.2
towards permanent alimony as well as past and future maintenance of
respondent No.2/complainant & their daughter, who is in her custody.
4. It is further agreed that an amount of ` 50,000/- shall be paid in
the form of FDR in the name of their minor daughter Mansi with the
provision of automatic renewal till attaining 18 years of age by their
daughter at the time of first motion proceedings of mutual consent
divorce, which has been received by respondent No.2.
5. It is further agreed that an amount of ` 50,000/- in the form of
FDR with above stipulation and another sum of ` 50,000/- in the name
of respondent no. 2 shall be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR.
6. Petitioner No.1 has handed over one FDR dated 06.02.2012
drawn on Bank of India, in the name of minor daughter Mansi and one
draft drawn on Punjab National Bank bearing No.984928 dated
30.01.2012 in favour of respondent No.2, both for an amount of
` 50,000/- each. Same has been received by respondent No.2 today in
the Court without any protest.
7. As per the settlement, it is also agreed between the parties that
remaining amount of ` 50,000/- shall be paid by petitioner No.1 to R-2
at the time of second motion proceedings of divorce by mutual
consent.
8. Respondent No.2, is present in the Court with her learned
counsel Ms.Deepa Rawat, who duly identifies as respondent No.2. In
addition, IO/ASI Jagmeshwar Dayal also identified her as respondent
No.2.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits
that since she received amount of `1,50,000/-as agreed in the
settlement dated 22.07.2011, therefore, she is no more interested to
pursue her case against the petitioners. Further, she has no objection, if
the FIR mentioned above, is quashed.
9. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP on the other hand submitted
that after registration of the FIR, matter is pending investigation and
charge-sheet has not been finalised because of the fact that in between
parties had compromised the matter. It is further submitted that if this
Court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs may be imposed upon
the petitioners as in the process, government machinery has been
pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.
10. Keeping the settlement dated 22.07.2011; first motion petition
already allowed and the statement of respondent No.2 that she is no
more interested in pursuing her case, therefore, in the interest of
justice, FIR No.36/2011 registered against the petitioners at police
station Crime (Women) Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi is hereby
quashed.
11. Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP regarding
putting the petitioners to some terms, however, keeping their financial
position into view, I refrain in imposing any costs upon them.
12. Consequently, Criminal M.C.No.332/2012 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
13. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2012
Mk
