Delhi High Court
Satbhag Singh & Ors. vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 31 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 366/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 31st January, 2012
SATBHAG SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.H.S. Arora, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
& ANR. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Satish Mishra, Proxy Counsel
for Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State.
Respondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
+ Crl. M.C. 366/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR
no.685/2004 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against
the petitioners on the complaint of Respondent no. 2 at Police Station -
Tilak Nagar.
4. Ld. Counsel further submits that matter has already been settled
vide agreement dated 05.08.2010. Consequent to the aforesaid
agreement, marriage between petitioner no. 1 Satbhag Singh and
respondent no. 2 Manjeet Kaur, D/o, Sh. Shyam Singh Marwaha has
been dissolved by mutual consent vide Decree of Divorce dated
21.04.2011
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondent
no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case further and the aforesaid
FIR be quashed.
6. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court and has not
rebutted the contentions raised by ld. Counsel for the petitioners and
prayed to quash the FIR as the matter has already been settled vide
agreement dated 05.08.2010 and marriage between her and petitioner
no. 1 had been dissolved vide Decree of Divorce dated 21.04.2011.
7. Respondent no. 2 further submits that as per the agreement dated
05.08.2010, she has already received Rs.1,33,332/- and the balance
amount of Rs.66,668/- has received today by way of DD no. 307055
and 307038 dated 14.01.2012 and 15.01.2012 issued by Punjab
National Bank for an amount of Rs.17,668/- and Rs.49,000/-
respectively. She further submits that she is no more interested to
pursue the case further and if the present FIR is quashed, she has no
objection.
8. Ld. Proxy Counsel for State on the other hand submits that
Chargesheet has been filed, charges have been framed and the matter is
pending for Prosecution Evidence. Therefore, in this process, Govt.
machinery has been pressed into and the precious time of the court has
been consumed and if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy
costs may be imposed on the petitioners.
9. Though I found force in the submission of ld. Proxy Counsel for
State, however, keeping in view the financial condition of the
petitioners I refrain in imposing costs on them.
10. Keeping the agreement dated 05.08.2010, Decree of Divorce
dated 21.04.2011 and the Statement of respondent no. 2, in the interest
of justice, I quash FIR no. 685/2004 registered at Police Station - Tilak
Nagar with emanating proceedings thereto.
11. Crl. M.C. 366/2012 is allowed on the above terms.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 31, 2012
Jg/RS
