Delhi High Court
Vipin Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr on 10 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 509/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 10th February, 2012
VIPIN KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Adv.
Petitioner No.1 in person.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State/R1 along with IO/W.ASI Domnika
Purty, P.S. Bindapur, Delhi.
Mr. C. Parkash, Advoate along with R2 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Notice issued.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State/respondent No.1
3. Mr. C. Parkash, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No.2.
4. At joint request, petition is taken up for final disposal today.
5. Learned counsels for both the parties jointly submit that vide
FIR No. 129 dated 17.05.2011, a case under Sections 498 A/406/34
IPC was registered against the petitioners at P.S. Binda Pur, Delhi on
the complaint of respondent No.2.
6. Further submit that the parties have arrived at settlement vide
settlement dated 04.06.2011, and all the disputes qua the present FIR
has been settled. Consequently, the petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay
sum of Rs.9.5lacs. Out of the said settlement amount, the petitioner
No.1 has already paid Rs.7.5lacs to respondent No.2.
7. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are personally present in
the court today. They are duly identified by their respective counsels.
They have also been identified by IO/W.ASI Domnika Purty, P.S.
Bindapur, Delhi.
8. Petitioner No.1 has also paid the remaining amount of Rs.2lacs
to respondent No.2 by way of Demand Draft No. 002743 dated
06.02.2012, drawn on State Bank of India, AFS Hindon. Respondent
No.2 has accepted the same without protest. The copy of the same is
placed on record.
9. Respondent No.2 submits that in view of settlement arrived at
between the parties, she is no more interested to pursue the above-
mentioned FIR and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
10. Learned APP for State submits that in view of the settlement
arrived at between the parties, the State has not filed Charge-sheet
before the trial court.
11. She further submits that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR
in the present case, then heavy costs be imposed upon the petitioners,
as in the process Government Machinery has been pressed into and the
precious time of the court has been consumed.
12. I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State on
costs.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submits that
petitioner No.1 is ready to donate a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards
welfare schemes.
14. I appreciate this gesture of petitioner No.1.
15. Accordingly I direct petitioner No.1 to deposit Rs.50,000/- in
favour of "Indigent & Disabled Lawyers Account" Bar Council of
Delhi, New Delhi. I refrain imposing costs upon petitioner Nos 2 to 6,
being relatives of petitioners No.1.
16. In view of above discussion and keeping in view the statement
of respondent No.2 and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No.
129/2011 registered at P.S. Bindapur, Delhi.
17. Criminal M.C. 509/2012 is allowed and disposed of on above
terms.
18. Dasti to both the parties.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2012
j
