Mohd Javed & Anr vs State & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 675 Del

$~A-15
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.M.C. 4246/2011

                               Judgment delivered on 31.01.2012

      MOHD JAVED & ANR                             ..... Petitioner

                               Through : Mr.Sumer Kumar Sethi, Adv. with
                                        Ms.Anita, Adv.

                      versus

      STATE & ANR                         ..... Respondent

                               Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the
                                         State with Mr.Satish Mishra,
                                         Advocate
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT


SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.198/2004 dated 8.6.2004 a case was registered under Section 498- A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Nabi Karim against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no.2.

2. Learned Counsel further submits that vide compromise deed dated 29.04.2009 the matter has been resolved between the parties and respondent no.2 is no more interested to pursue the case further. It is further submitted that pursuant to compromise mentioned above, marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 has been

dissolved by the competent Court, therefore, the FIR may be quashed.

3. Respondent no.2 is personally present in Court and for her identification she has produced Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India bearing no. CJQ 0797894. She has submitted that she is no more interested to pursue the case and if the FIR mentioned above is quashed she has no objection. She has further submitted that cash of ` 8,000/- which were deposited by the petitioner, be released in favour of her/respondent no.2.

4. Learned APP on the other hand submits that in the present case chargesheet has been filed but charges are yet to be framed. She prayed that in the event, FIR is quashed, heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed.

5. Keeping the settlement dated 29.04.2009 and the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, in the interest of justice as respondent no.2 has already remarried, the FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

6. Though, I find force in the submission of ld.APP, however, keeping the financial position of the petitioner no.1, who is not employed and petitioner no.2 is a widow and earning nothing, I refrain from imposing cost on both the petitioners.

7. The trial court is directed to release Rs 8,000/- in favour of respondent no.2 as the matter has already been settled, consequently FIR and proceedings thereto have been quashed.

8. With these observations, Crl.M.C. is allowed.

9. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

JANUARY 31, 2012 Nt/RS