Delhi High Court
Satyam @ Stya Dev & Ors vs State on 9 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~01
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No. 3352/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 09th January, 2012
SATYAM @ STYA DEV & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sandeep Garosa and
Mr.Rasid Khan, Advs with petitioner
Nos.1 & 5 in person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.No.11917/2011(exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
+ CRL.M.C. No. 3352/2011
1. Notice issued.
2. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State/respondent.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, matter is being
taken up for disposal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR
No.86/2002 dated 13.02.2002 case under Section 498A/406 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered at police station Jahangirpuri, Delhi
against the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 on complaint of petitioner No.5.
5. He further submits that petitioner No.5 has amicably settled all
the issues qua the present FIR with the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 vide a
compromise deed dated 16.10.2010. The total settled amount of ` 1.00
lacs has already been received by petitioner No.5. Pursuant thereto, the
marriage between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.5 had already been
dissolved by mutual consent divorce decree dated 06.07.2011.
6. Petitioner No.5 is present in the Court. For her identification,
she has produced original voter identity card bearing No.CRJ1226935;
original seen and returned to her. She has not disputed the facts as
submitted by learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 to 4. She has no
objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
7. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP on instructions submits that
after framing of charge against the petitioner Nos.1 to 4, matter is
pending trial before learned Trial Court. In the process, government
machinery has been pressed into action and the precious time of the
Court has been consumed. Therefore, while quashing the present FIR,
heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners.
8. Since the petition has been instituted jointly by petitioner Nos.1
to 4 and petitioner No.5, matter has been settled between themselves
and marriage of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.5 has already been
dissolved, in the interest of justice, FIR No.86/2002 was registered at
police station Jahangirpuri, Delhi against the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and
the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
9. Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP regarding
imposing costs upon petitioners, however keeping the financial
position of petitioners into view, I refrain in imposing any costs upon
them.
10. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3352/2011 is allowed and stands
disposed of in above terms.
11. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 09, 2012
Mk
