Kamaljit Kaur & Ors. vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 185 Del

$~28

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+             CRL.M.C. 80/2012

%             Judgment delivered on: 10th January, 2012

       KAMALJIT KAUR & ORS.         ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr.Tarunvir Singh Kehar and
                   Mr.Arun Dhiman, Advs.

                         versus

       STATE                                         ..... Respondent
                                  Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for State.
                                  SI Rambir Singh, PS-Ambedkar Nagar.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A. 312/2012 & Crl. M.A. 314/2012 (Exemptions)

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

+      Crl. M.C. 80/2012

1.     Notice issued.

2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent/state.

3. The instant petition has been filed jointly by petitioner no.1/Complainant and petitioner no. 2-10/accused.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 616

dated 07.08.2006 case under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner no. 2-10 on the complaint of petitioner no. 1 at PS-Ambedkar Nagar.

5. Ld. Counsel further submits that petitioner no. 1 has settled all the disputes against the petitioner no. 2-10 qua the aforesaid FIR and she is no more interested to pursue the case further.

6. Petitioner no. 1 Kamaljeet Kaur, is personally present in the Court with her father Sh. Mewa Singh. In support of her identity she has produced Voter I-Card bearing no. YWCO522862 issued by Election Commission of India. Original seen and returned to petitioner no.1. She submits that she is no more interested to pursue the case and if the present FIR is quashed, she has no objection.

7. Initially, the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 was dissolved before the Panchayat of Village Dhakki, Saini Majra, Post Office-Ghanauli, Tehsil and District Ropar, Punjab. Pursuant to the said Talaknama, a Decree of Divorce was obtained on 11.04.2009 by the competent Court.

8. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that challan has been filed. However, the charges are yet to be framed. Ld. APP further submits that since the Govt. machinery has been pressed into and the precious time of the court has been consumed, heavy cost should be imposed on the petitioner no. 2-10.

9 Though I found force in the submission of ld. APP, however, keeping in view the financial condition of petitioner no. 2 since he is a truck driver and getting a meagre salary of Rs.5,000/-, I refrain from imposing cost on him.

10. Petitioners no. 3-10 are all relatives and the financial condition of the petitioners are almost same, therefore, I refrain from imposing cost on them also.

11. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR no. 616 dated 07.08.2006 registered at PS-Ambedkar Nagar.

12. Crl. M.C. 80/2012 is allowed on the above terms.

13. Since the main petition is allowed, Crl. M.A. 313/2012 (Stay) become infructuous and disposed of as such.

SURESH KAIT, J

JANUARY 10, 2012 jg