Delhi High Court
Ajay Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr on 6 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M. C. No.842/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 6th March, 2012
AJAY KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP.
Respondent No.2 in person.
SI Rajvir Singh, P.S. Nanakpura
in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. No.2944/2012
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C. No.842/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State.
3. Respondent No.2 is present in person with her father, Sh. Ravi
Bhushan and mother Ms. Sudesh Sareen.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that FIR No.20/2008,
dated 19.05.2008 under Section 406, 498A & 34 IPC was registered at
P.S. CWC Nanak Pura against petitioners on the complaint of
respondent No.2.
5. It is further submitted that vide settlement deed dated
06.01.2011, respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid
FIR against all the petitioners. Consequent to settlement mentioned
above, Petitioner No.1 agreed to pay Rs.5 lacs in lump sum for all the
claims. Out of which, Rs.4,50,000/- has already been received by the
respondent No.2 and Rs.50,000/- is to be received at the time of
quashing of the FIR.
6. Further, it is submitted that the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-
has been paid in Court vide Draft No.095214, dated 09.09.11 in favour
of Ms. Shalini/respondent No.2.
7. It is further submitted that since respondent No.2 is no more
interested to pursue the case against the petitioners, therefore, the said
petition may be allowed.
8. Respondent No.2 is present in person with her parents. SI Rajvir
Singh, I.O. of the case has identified respondent No.2. It is submitted
that she has settled all the claims qua the aforesaid FIR against all the
petitioners and she has received the entire settlement amount from
petitioner No.1. Therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the
matter and she has no objection if the aforesaid FIR No. 20 registered
at P.S. CWC Nanak Pura against the petitioners is quashed.
9. Respondent No.2 has further submitted that in pursuance to the
settlement deed dated 06.01.2011, marriage between the petitioner
No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by mutual consent
decree dated 22.07.2011.
10. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that after filing the
charge-sheet, charges have been framed against the petitioners and the
case is pending for prosecution evidence.
11. Learned APP has further submitted that if this Court is inclined
to quash the FIR, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners,
as in this process the government machinery has been pressed into and
precious public time has been consumed.
12. Keeping in view the settlement deed dated 06.01.2011, the
dissolution of marriage by mutual consent decree dated 22.07.2011 and
the statement of respondent No.2 as she is no more interested in
pursuing the matter, therefore in the interest of justice, I quash the
aforesaid FIR No. 20/2008 registered at P.S. CWC Nanak Pura against
all the petitioners with consequent criminal proceedings emanating
thereto.
13. Though, I find force in the submissions of learned APP
regarding imposing costs upon petitioners, however, keeping their
financial position into view, I refrain from imposing costs upon them.
14. Accordingly, Crl.M.C. No.842/2012 is allowed.
15. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 06, 2012
Rb/jg
