Delhi High Court
Dinesh Chandra Singh Bora & Ors vs State & Anr on 13 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 520/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 13th February, 2012
DINESH CHANDRA SINGH BORA & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Umesh Prasad, Adv.
P1 in person.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State
along with IO/Insp. Vijay Kumar.
Mr. Gajender Mohan Chand, Adv. for R2.
R2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 1827/2012(Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
+ CRL. M.C. 520/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
R1/State.
3. Mr. Gajendra Mohan Chand, Advocate accepts notice on behalf
of R2/complainant.
4. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for
final disposal.
5. Learned counsels for the parties submit that vide FIR No.
57/2008, a case under Sections 406/498 A/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
was registered against the petitioners on complaint of respondent No.2
at P.S. CAW Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi.
6. It is submitted that the parties have amicably settled all the
issues qua the aforesaid FIR for a total sum of Rs.1lacs to be paid by
petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2.
7. Further submitted that out of the total settlement amount of
Rs.1lacs, an amount of Rs.60,000/- has already been received by
respondent No.2. For balance amount, Petitioner No.1 has handed
hands over a cheque No. 702397, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Vayu
Bhawan, Rafi Marg, Delhi dated 10.02.2012 in favour of respondent
No.2 for Rs.40,000/- to respondent No.2.
8. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the court today. She
has been duly identified by her counsel and IO/Insp. Vijay Kumar. She
accepts the above cheque of Rs.40,000/- without protest.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the marriage between
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has already been dissolved vide a
decree of divorce dated 18.01.2012.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits
that respondent No.2 has received the entire settlement amount and she
has no objection if the instant FIR is quashed.
11. Learned APP for State on the other hand submits that the
Charge-sheet has been filed in the trial court and the matter is pending
for framing of Charges against the petitioners.
12. She further submits that in the process Government machinery
has been pressed into and precious time of the court has been
consumed. Therefore, if this court is inclined to quash the FIR in the
instant case, then heavy costs be imposed upon the petitioners.
13. Though I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for
State but keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner No.1 is working
as Sergeant in Air-force, which is a lower rank, I refrain from imposing
costs upon him.
14. Keeping in view of the above discussion, statement of
respondent No.2, I quash FIR No. 57/2008, registered at P.S. CAW
Cell, Nanak Pura, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
15. Criminal M.C. 520/2012 is allowed on the above terms.
16. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2012/j
