Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar Bhati vs State & Ors. on 1 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 380/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 1st March, 2012
VIJAY KUMAR BHATI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dhanpal Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State/R-1.
Mr. Nasimuddin, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Pursuance to order dated 01.02.2012, respondent no. 2 Smt.
Neha Bansal, D/o, Sh. Raj Gopal Bansal has made her appearance in
Court. In support of her identity she has produced her Voter I-Card
bearing no. TPE0015008 issued by Election Commission of India.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 113
dated 18.03.2010, case under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of
respondent no. 2 at PS-Jyoti Nagar.
3. It is further submitted that thereafter vide settlement dated
01.07.2010 all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR has been resolved
between petitioner and respondent no. 2. Consequent to the said
settlement marriage between petitioner and respondent no. 2 has been
dissolved by mutual consent vide decree of divorce dated 25.07.2011.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent
no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case further as she has already
received Rs. 11 Lacs out of the total amount of Rs.16 Lacs and the
remaining amount of Rs.5 Lacs is being paid today in the court by way
of Demand Draft bearing no. 349034 dated 23.01.2012 issued by State
Bank of India.
5. Respondent no. 2 is present in person, who is identified by her
Counsel.
6. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 on instruction submits that she
has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR vide settlement dated
01.07.2010. Pursuance to the said settlement marriage between
petitioner and respondent no. 2 dissolved by mutual consent vide
Decree of Divorce dated 25.07.2011.
7. Ld. Counsel further submits that respondent no. 2 is no more
interested to pursue the case further against the petitioner. Therefore,
she has no objection if the FIR mentioned above is quashed.
8. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that after investigation,
charge-sheet has been filed. Charges have also framed against the
petitioner and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence.
9. Ld. APP further submits that if this Court is inclined to quash
the FIR and emanating proceedings thereto, heavy costs be imposed on
the petitioner as in this process, Govt. machinery has been pressed into
and precious time of Court has been consumed.
10. Keeping the settlement dated 01.07.2010, consequent to which
respondent no. 2 has received the entire settlement amount, dissolution
of marriage between them vide Decree of Divorce dated 25.07.2011
and Statement of respondent no. 2, who is no more interested to pursue
the case further into view, in the interest of justice and keeping the
facts and circumstances of the case, FIR no. 113 dated 18.03.2010
registered at PS-Jyoti Nagar with emanating proceedings thereto are
hereby quashed.
11. However, I find force in the submission of ld. APP on cost.
Therefore while quashing the FIR referred above and emanating
proceedings thereto, I direct the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- in
favour of "Principal, Sr. Secondary School for Blind Boys, Sewa Kutir,
B.B.M. Depot Road, Kingsway Camp, Delhi" within 2 weeks from today
with intimation to SHO concerned. Proof thereof shall be placed on record.
SHO concerned shall ensure the timely deposition of costs imposed upon
the petitioner.
12. The Principal of above school is directed to keep the above amount
of costs in FDR initially for 02 years with any Nationalized bank and
thereafter get it renewed periodically. The interest accrued thereon shall be
utilized for the well being of the needy children of the school.
13. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 380/2012 is allowed on the above terms.
14. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 01, 2012/jg
