Delhi High Court
Parvinder Kumar @ Pinder & Ors vs State & Anr on 18 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 188/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 18th January, 2012
PARVINDER KUMAR @ PINDER & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ravin Rao, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP with ASI
Rajender Sing PS Kanjhawla
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. 704/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
Crl.M.C. No. 188/2012
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No.51/2006,
case under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at
PS Kanjhawala, against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel further submits that vide settlement dated 28.7.2010,
respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR, and
therefore, she does not want to pursue her case any further.
3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court. ASI Rajender
Singh Tomar identifies her as respondent No.2. She submits that the
settlement has already been arrived and as per the settlement, petitioner No.1
agreed to pay Rs.9.25 lacs and Rs.6.75 lacs has already been received by the
complainant/respondent No.2. The remaining balance amount of Rs.2.50
lacs, which was to be paid at the time of quashing of FIR, has been paid
today by the Petitioners to respondent No.2 vide one demand draft No.
433422 dated 12.01.2012 drawn on the Corporation Bank in favour of the
complainant/respondent No.2, which is duly received by her. She further
submits that vide a decree of divorce dated 17.2.2011, the marriage between
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has already been dissolved. She states
that if the present FIR is quashed, she has no objection.
4. Learned APP on the other hand submits that the charge-sheet has
already been filed however the charges are yet to be framed. She further
submits that if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR, then heavy costs be
imposed on the petitioners as in this process Government machinery has
been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.
5. I find force in the submission of learned APP, and therefore, the
petitioners No.1 and 2 are directed to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- each in
favour of Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within two weeks from today and the
proof of the same shall be placed on record. I refrain myself from imposing
costs on petitioners No. 3 to 8 as all these are the relatives of the petitioners
No. 1 and 2.
6. In the circumstances, keeping in view the statement of respondent
No.2 that she is no more interested to pursue the case and the fact that the
marriage has already been dissolved, the FIR in question is quashed.
7. The CRL.M.C. 188/2012 is disposed of.
8. In view of above, Crl.M.A.No.703/2012(stay) does not require any
further adjudication and stands disposed of as such.
9. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 18, 2012
'raj'
