Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 469 Del

$~37
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+    CRL.M.C. 252/2012

%           Judgment delivered on:23rd January, 2012


     MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.                  ..... Petitioner
                 Through : Mr. Rakesh Gupta,
                 Petitioner No.1 in person.

                    versus


     STATE & ANR.                        ..... Respondent
                             Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for State
                             with IO/SI Satender, P.S. Gulabi Bagh,
                             Delhi.
                             Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. D.K.
                             Tyagi, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT


SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CRL. M.A. 912/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL. M.C. 252/2012

1    Notice issued.

2    Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of


 State/respondent No.1.

3     Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No. 2.

4     Learned counsel for petitioners submits that vide FIR. 116/2009,

a case under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on complaint of respondent No.2 at P.S. Gulabi Bagh/PratapBagh, Delhi.

5 Further submits that vide Compromise Deed dated 14.01.2011, the parties have compromised the matter and respondent No.2 has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. It is submitted that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has already been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 30.08.2011.

6 Respondent No.2 is personally present in the court today. She is duly identified by IO of the case and her counsel.

7 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits that respondent No.2 does not want to pursue the case anymore in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

8 Learned APP for state submits that Charge-sheet has been filed and the Charges are yet to be framed in the trial court.

9 Learned APP further submits that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR in the present case, then heavy costs shall be imposed upon the petitioner as in the process, government machinery has been

pressed into and precious time of the court has been consumed.

10 Though, I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State, but keeping in view the fact that petitioners belong to poor family, I refrain imposing costs upon them.

11 Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of respondent No.2 into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 116/2009 registered at P.S. Gulabi Bagh/Pratap Bagh, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

12 Criminal M.C. 252/2012 is disposed of.

13    Dasti.



                                              SURESH KAIT, J

JANUARY 23, 2012
j