Sujita & Ors vs State (Nct Of Dlehi & Anr)
2012 Latest Caselaw 233 Del

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 233 Del
Judgement Date : 12 January, 2012

Delhi High Court

Sujita & Ors vs State (Nct Of Dlehi & Anr) on 12 January, 2012

Author: Suresh Kait

$~13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRL.M.C. 4274/2011

%              Judgment delivered on: 12th January, 2012

SUJITA & ORS                                  ..... Petitioners
                              Through: Mr. C.M. Thapliyal, Adv.
                     versus


STATE (NCT OF DLEHI & ANR)            ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for
                  State/R-1.
                  Mr. S.P. Paul, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

+ Crl. M.C. 4274/2011

1. Ld. Counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that vide FIR No. 815 dated 11.10.2001, case under Section 406/498-A/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 2 at PS-Malviya Nagar.

2. It is further submitted by ld. Counsels for parties that vide Compromise Deed dated 28.02.2011, matter has been resolved between the parties. Therefore, respondent no. 2 is not interested to pursue the case any further.

3. Respondent no. 2 is present in person with her Counsel. Ld.

Counsel for respondent no. 2 on instruction submitted that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

4. Ld. APP on the other hand submitted that chargesheet has been filed and charges have been framed and the case is at the stage of Prosecution evidence. He further submitted that if this court is inclined to quash the instant FIR heavy cost should be imposed on the petitioners as in this process, Government machinery has been pressed into and precious time of the court has been consumed.

5. Keeping the compromise deed dated 28.02.2011 into view and the statement of respondent no.2, I quash FIR no. 815/2001 registered at PS-Malviya Nagar with emanating proceedings thereto.

6. Though I found force in the submission of ld. APP, however, keeping in view the financial position of the petitioners, I refrain in imposing cost on them.

7. Crl.M.C. 4274/2011 is allowed on the above terms.

8. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

JANUARY 12, 2012 jg